1. FrayVader - May 21, 1998 - 10:36 PM PDT
What should be done about India's nuclear testing? What are the implications for peace in the subcontinent? How should the United States be involved? This is the place to discuss these issues and other topics related to nuclear arms.
2. joezan - May 21, 1998 - 10:41 PM PDT
Anyone know what recent events will mean for India/China relations?
3. cigarlaw - May 21, 1998 - 10:46 PM PDT
Cigarlaw would comment, but he would probably be viewed as heartless, or anti-Clinton, or something equally disturbing to tranquility
4. cigarlaw - May 21, 1998 - 11:02 PM PDT
Yes we shall all go together when we go,
all sufused with an incandesent glow ... etc
I have a song lyric for every occaision.
5. ScottLoar - May 22, 1998 - 4:24 AM PDT
JoeZan: Exploding nuclear devices is sure to attract the attention of your neighbors; both China and Pakistan have denounced the Indian upgrades to its weapons capabilities. Yet if I were a neighbor to either China or Pakistan I'd want a real, real good defense weapon. Note that China's historical and most likely source of internal unrest comes from the Moslem minorities of the Northwest yet China has helped Pakistan's missile program for no good reason other than to aggravate Indo-Pakistani relations (and so mitigate perceived threat to China's own border security) and earn some income.
I still maintain Pakistan is India's prime antagonist and most likely enemy in any future war (or, to satisfy those who note the disparity in size between the two, India is Pakistan's prime antagonist and most likely enemy in any future war).
6. thoughtful - May 22, 1998 - 1:36 PM PDT
ScottLoar, would you agree that it makes life tougher for the Chinese who are also courting favor (for obvious economic reasons) with the US?
As I'm certainly no expert in international affairs, I would appreciate comments on my POV. I think the BJP party which is a loose coalition of a number of parties, some of which are pretty far out, and which is also a minority, needed to coalesce and enhance its political standing and popularity. Just as when Reagan attacked Grenada, and when Bush did attacking Noriega, nothing like a little show of power and nationalism to swell one's popularity. Given the reported popular support of the testing in India, I would say it worked.
7. ScottLoar - May 22, 1998 - 2:07 PM PDT
I'm no expert in foreign affairs either but...the PRC government has consistently shown no finesse in managing foreign affairs or their public image, even their apologists in public forums to a sympathetic audience foul up to everyone's embarrassment. However, that government does hold tight to certain ends (a tenacity the US would do well to imitate) which chief international goal is to reduce the "hegemony" of the US, for China sees the US as the prime obstacle to the development and expansion of its economic, political and military power. In view of such a long-term prospect China seems to expect and manage setbacks with the US and so aid to Pakistan is just one very minor and very small setback in gaining advantage.
The election of the Hindu Nationalist Party merely allowed nuclear testing to proceed after a moratorium of 25 years self-imposed by the previous governing party in deference to the US. I would interpret India's point of view at face value, that the testing was necessary to upgrade t
8. ScottLoar - May 22, 1998 - 2:15 PM PDT
their nuclear weapons capability which could not be replicated by computer simulation, and thus India refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That grown men and women dance in jubilation in the streets of Calcutta and Mombay and flagellate themselves in Lahore and Islamabad only shows they have not yet come to live with a nuclear arsenal.
9. thomasd - May 22, 1998 - 3:16 PM PDT
India's nuclear program is going to get a *glowing* report, I'm sure.
10. FreeToChoose - May 22, 1998 - 3:32 PM PDT
ScottLoar
I agree that India's action should be largely taken at face value, although I think thoughtful point about a show of nationalism explains a lot.
11. FreeToChoose - May 22, 1998 - 3:44 PM PDT
I want to thank JadeGold again for pointing me to the provision in the law that requires sanctions. I expressed the idea in another thread that the law might not even apply to India. Whether it does or not, George S. doesn't seem to think the imposition of the sanctions was so automatic. From last Sunday's
This Week
"ROBERTS : But doesn't the law just automatically impose
sanctions?
STEPHANOPOULOS : Well, but they wanted to find a way-if
you can always fudge the law a little bit, as the president said in that
recent interview.
(LAUGHTER)"
I think the US was wrong-headed to impose sanctions for India's actions.
When I first reached this conclusion, I thought I might be almost alone in this opinion, but based upon many of the comments in the Pundit's Shows, it appears that many are supporting me: Pundit Central
12. ScottLoar - May 22, 1998 - 4:59 PM PDT
Yes, the US was wrong to impose sanctions, but the Congress did pass the law automatically requiring so and where is the politician or elected official in these United States who would proclaim otherwise to their constituency? Unless, of course, that constituency was predominantly South Asian and not Moslem. My point is, Americans wish to luxuriate among the grasses of the moral high ground on this issue for they know nuclear proliferation is bad. That India had the bomb 20-odd years ago and delayed further testing until just recently only seems to confuse for it is seemingly the Hydra "nuclear proliferation" let loose.
I guess one could argue that it is the very nature of science to move forward: the tests were arrested for 20-odd years and it seems inevitable that the tests would resume under more favourable conditions.
13. FreeToChoose - May 22, 1998 - 7:22 PM PDT
ScottLoar
"Yes, the US was wrong to impose sanctions, but the
Congress did pass the law automatically requiring so ..."
I'm not convinced. Here is the law: Sanctions required
Here is the closing sentence of the relevant section:
"As used in this section, the term "non- nuclear-weapon state" means any country which is not a nuclear-weapon state, as defined in Article IX(3) of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."
Many people seem to forget that India has *not* signed the NNPT. While it may be legally permissible to include a state in a treaty that they didn't sign, it is exceedingly bad form. I'd like to hear an international lawyer tell us whether this is permissible, and if so, on what justification. I somehow doubt that the US would recognize as valid a treaty they didn't sign.
The sanctions are automatic in the case of non-nuclear-weapon states. I think that there is an argument that India should not be considered such a state (if the law isn't with me, what about logic? It's absurd to call India a non-nuclear state).
14. thomasd - May 22, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
The widespread public knowledge that China is effectively treating the US as a strategic opponent by targeting nuclear warheads on the US, as well as India's nuclear testing, is probably the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of US efforts to restrain nuclear proliferation in other countries. The US shares considerable culpability here because of the current administration's vastly preferential treatment of China in areas of sensitive information with military and nuclear applications, in addition to the greatly expanded arms sales to foreign countries in general.
The US Government should face these emerging realities and begin *serious* planning to implement an effective nationwide ABM system at the earliest opportunity, while not giving up on existing efforts to control nuclear proliferation in other countries.
15. thomasd - May 22, 1998 - 8:20 PM PDT
I believe India regards any possible US economic sanctions as mere mosquito bites relative to the concerns elicited by the threats posed by China, and, secondarily, Pakistan.
16. thomasd - May 22, 1998 - 8:36 PM PDT
Given the greater multipolarity that is developing with the increasing number of nations that can project nuclear force, I believe that the only recourse that can offer a real solution in controlling nuclear arms proliferation in the long run will be in widespread implementation of truly effective defenses against same.
17. ScottLoar - May 23, 1998 - 7:22 AM PDT
re Message #13: Yes, an international lawyer may parse the letter of the law but as India had quite unexpectedly exploded a nuclear device the US public now bays against "nuclear proliferation" and wants sanctions. The legal applicability of the law was seemingly mooted by India's abrupt explosion; in other words, there will be consequences to India applied by the US Congress be they legal or extralegal. Or at least that's how I see it.
18. marjoribanks - May 27, 1998 - 6:53 AM PDT
My view and some observations:
1) The CBTB is a hoax, nobody pays any heed to it, least of all the USA which has not bothered to even ratify the document. Any rhetoric about forcing India to sign it as a non-nuclear state is absurd and rank hypocisy.
2) Mainstream U.S. media coverage of the issue has been irresponsible and astonishingly blinkered. I am in curious position of touting far-right commentators, Newt Gingrich and the L. A. Times for the only half-way intelligent perspective on this topic.
3) Personally, I am aware that there was no real strategic need to test those five weapons. Everyone is aware that Indian conventional troops can overrun the main part of Pakistan in three days on the outside. Also, having a few bombs properly prepared to hit China isn't going to do jack in case of a nuclear conflict with that country, given the overwhelming nuclear advantage held by the PLA. In addition, I am generally anti-Nuke from an environmental perspective.
But the Indian tests appear to be likely to have a negligible impact on the environment. Certainly, the tests were held deep under a remote desert patch, and not in an ocean environment thousands of miles removed from home (France) or in the atmosphere (China, everybody else).
I would be more gung-ho about the tests if they had been conducted years ago as planned by the scientific establishment of India. But they were done now, (days after the Pakistan military "tested" a ballistic missile named after a famous invader from Ghaur), under a revivalist and occasionally insanely chauvinist government. The huge upswell of popular opinion will be courted by further acts of Indian muscle-flexing. Don't be surprised if there is some real skirmishing over the Line of Control in Kashmir.
19. MrSocko - May 27, 1998 - 10:01 AM PDT
marjoribanks:
"In addition, I am generally anti-Nuke from an environmental perspective."
Hahahahahaha! Not from a human perspective, huh, son? Oh, well. It's good to you and me and the BJP in agreement for once. I am extremely pro-nuke when it comes to India; a few more tests are in order so far as I'm concerned.
20. Wombat - May 27, 1998 - 2:41 PM PDT
Nuclear tests in a geopolitical situation that has not changed in years, done by an explicitly nationalist government in a country that is much less united and stable than it appears, scares the crap out of me.
21. marjoribanks - May 28, 1998 - 2:22 AM PDT
Wombat,
Why does India strike you as "less united and stable than it appears" ?
I'd say precisely the opposite is true, this is no Yugoslavia-type situation, for example.
I'd also point out that India has been an extremely responsible nuclear state for decades, its military and scientific establishment is thoroughly professional, world-class and secular. There is no danger whatsoever of India utilizing nuclear weapons in a "first-strike." I'd argue that the nukes in India are less of a threat to global peace than those in China, Russia, Israel, Korea (US-placed) etc.
22. MrSocko - May 28, 1998 - 8:31 AM PDT
marjoribanks:
Pray tell us how and why Korea's nuclear arms are "US placed." As I understand it, Korea doesn't even have nukes.
23. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 8:37 AM PDT
Socko - Marj was refering to nukes "in" Korea as opposed to "owned" by Korea.
Marj - I would say that India was a marginally responsible state wrt nukes and that it moved into the irresponsible catagory with the tests. Now that Pakistan has also moved from marginal to irresponsible, in a twisted version of keeping up with Joneses, it appears to me that there is little chance of avoiding a nuke arms race. Given that there have three wars between Pakistan and India, and one war between India and China, the idea that these conflicts will in the future be between two (or three in a really worst case scenario) nuke armed states bodes very poorly for the peoples of S. Asia.
vK
24. MrSocko - May 28, 1998 - 9:10 AM PDT
Gimme a break, vonKreedon. America has tested more than one thousand nuclear bombs. I refuse to see what's happening on the subcontinent (ie, a few nuclear tests) as being the end of civilization.
You say that India was being a "marginally responsible state" before it "moved into the irresponsible catagory with the tests." Why don't you just go ahead and admit it: since India is less than one thousandeth as "irresponsible" as the United States has been, the only thing that can so upset you, in this case, is that ... Indians are a bunch of dark-skinned people.
25. JustSayYo - May 28, 1998 - 9:27 AM PDT
YEA!,
I intend a glib commentary, so pass or dig it.
FIRST: thomasd is giving an excellent try. Kudos
Hmmm... I think India is as it should be. Almost a billion people, An interesting history, excellent location (man can you dig that), Strong governments (as they appear) and can you see, they are a complete topic. Man, can you believe *that*? I for one am in stunded awe. My take is, Slap my forhead and give it to me. In other words I'm listerning. I am very much paying attention. THANKS!
Peace.
Yo.
26. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 10:11 AM PDT
Socko - I have not commented at all on the USA's nuke responsibility. As the only nation to ever use nukes, as the nation with the most nukes, we are certainly, IMO, in the irresponsible catagory. We are, however, moving in the right direction with no testing and the supposed decomisioning of nukes. The fact that we are irresponsible does not mean that we are in no position to comment on and attempt to counter the irresponsibility of others. The fact that India was irresponsible does not justify the irresponsibility of Pakistan.
27. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 12:00 PM PDT
From wire services:
" India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee Thursday said Pakistan had forced his government to take the path of nuclear deterrence, and India was ready to meet "any challenge."
Asked if India's tests two weeks ago may have spurred Pakistan to conduct its own series of tests earlier Thursday, Vajpayee told reporters: "No, we did not. In fact Pakistan...forced us to take the path of nuclear deterrence." "
So the seemingly inevitable nuke arms race is officially underway. The seconc paragraph is a particularly amusing piece of self-serving circular logic.
28. alistairConnor - May 28, 1998 - 1:04 PM PDT
The item I heard had Vajpayee saying that the Pakistani tests just demonstrated how right and necessary the Indian tests were.
With this sort of reasoning, he could justify a nuclear first strike against Pakistan by the fact that they would undoubtedly retaliate.
29. labarjare - May 28, 1998 - 1:24 PM PDT
Ye Gods. Is there any credible "evidence" - any - that the Pakistanis' testing was actually scheduled to take place? (I don't pretend to know anything about the logistics of such things, but having their own tests only two weeks after India's seems remarkably quick if done on a start-up basis. Perhaps we should ask the C.I.A about its views on this.)
At any rate, even if there *is* such credible evidence, how in the world does that give ANY credence to Vajpayee's comments today.
Madness.
30. alistairConnor - May 28, 1998 - 1:44 PM PDT
France carried out nuclear tests, after a moratorium of several years, within months of Chirac's election. The technicians had the test program lined up ready and waiting for a political opportunity.
I think both Pakistan and India were in a similar position; probably having pumped heaps of money into their respective programs, and being politically unable or unwilling to perform the tests necessary to validate the progress made.
One wonders how far ahead they are with simulation. The technical rationale for the last (and apparently, they were definitively the last) French tests was to gather the data to plug into the simulation models which were nearing completion. Thereafter, computer modeling is supposed to render further testing redundant, and allows continued refining and improvement of the weapons of mass destruction...
31. UnderCoverSquids - May 28, 1998 - 1:45 PM PDT
Lab,
I wonder if the CIA would have been able to predict these tests if it hadn't been for the Pakistanis telling everyone they were going to conduct them, or if we'd have heard about them first, from the Pakistanis themselves.
OTOH, it seems perfectly believable that the CIA, or someone, knew about the Indian tests before they took place and elected to let them happen for a variety of reasons:
1. Another arms race, anywhere, is good news for the CIA, our defense business and the Pentagon.
2. Revealing the tests may have used up a well placed mole, or source, within the Indian nuclear program when that person could be more valuable later.
3. We like watching China be pressured, no matter by whom or what.
32. UnderCoverSquids - May 28, 1998 - 1:50 PM PDT
alistair,
I think your Message #30 answers your question in Message #28 about India's claim that their tests were necessary.
If India *knew* that the Pakistanis were within a few weeks/months of being able to complete a round of tests, the claim seems more rational than if India is just using the fact that Pakistain *was* within a few weeks/months of completing tests (having not *known* this until after conducting her own tests.)
33. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 2:09 PM PDT
UCS - This is still the sort of circular reasoning that can lead to, as AC said, "...could justify a nuclear first strike against Pakistan by the fact that they would undoubtedly retaliate." To have intelligence that one *can* perform tests is very different that to have intel that one *has* performed tests. The CIA was saying on Tuesday that Pakistan *could* test within hours, two days later Pakistan *did* test. Then India said that this proved that Pakistan had initiated the arms race!
34. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 2:11 PM PDT
Also, AFAIK this is the first time the Pakistanis have lit off a nuke, the Indians lit one off ~24 years ago.
35. alistairConnor - May 28, 1998 - 2:11 PM PDT
No, Squiddle, my contention is that they've both had their tests ready and on hold for years. The trigger was obviously the change of government in India. It's not Pakistan who's doing the escalating.
Actually I would like to be sanguine about India as a nuclear power -- in fact I suggested, and I was serious, that India should take over Britain's seat on the UN security council -- but Pakistan as a nuclear power gives me the shits. And as the "international community" is obliged to take an "even handed" approach, that means both will take a caning.
36. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
AC - I only wish that the French, Brits and Russians had been willing to participate in the "caning" of India. It is possible, though maybe not likely, that this would have given Pakistan the political standing to resist their own test.
37. labarjare - May 28, 1998 - 2:14 PM PDT
Assume (as must be likely) that the Indians damn well knew how far along the Pakistanis were and that it was deemed imperative to the Indians that they undertake their own tests. Even so - the *only* imperative I can see for going first is some sort of weird national macho.
Actually - I can think of a second. The Indians knew of course that there would be sanctions against them if they tested and obviously calculated them into their test decision. They also knew that the Pakistanis would follow suit with their own testing and in turn would also be subject to the sanctions. It seems clear that the sanctions will have/should have much more severe impact on the Pakistanis than on the Indians. So - at the end of the day, the Indians have whatever internal political benefits come from the pride of being first (!!!) and the better end of the sanctions stick in terms of more hardships for their neighbors than for them.
Madness.
38. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 2:23 PM PDT
There is no evidence that I have heard that the Pakistanis where actively preparing for a test prior to the Indian tests.
Also, Lab says, "It seems clear that the sanctions will have/should have much more severe impact on the Pakistanis than on the Indians." Do you mean "should have" in a judgment sense, they deserve harsher measures, or a speculative, they are likely to experience harsher measures?
39. UnderCoverSquids - May 28, 1998 - 2:28 PM PDT
Message #33
Von,
I'm not going on anything people have said, just: if India, through her own intelligence sources, knew that Pakistan was technically capable of gearing up for and performing a test within such a short period of time their decision to test makes more sense than if they hadn't known.
After all, Pakistan is now claiming to have rockets with a range of 900mi, capable of delivering their nuclear warheads. What? within 2-3 weeks of India's test?
Yeah, yeah I see what you mean about justifying your actions based on things that happen after you act, but I'm just going on the "what if" scenario. What if India knew that Pakistan was that close? Then certainly Lab's Message #37 scenario is possible and if true, very shrewd foreign policy in my opinion (shrew from their perspective, that is.)
40. labarjare - May 28, 1998 - 2:45 PM PDT
vonK - "should have" as in more economic deprivation seems likely for the Pakistanis in terms of the impact of the sanctions relative to that on the Indians. In terms of the equities here, however, it really should be the Indians who take the brunt. Unless someone can come up with a cockamammy (sic) theory that the Pakistanis somehow lured the Indians into going first, I don't care how ready they were or itching to have an excuse to test. They didn't go first.
41. labarjare - May 28, 1998 - 2:50 PM PDT
BTW - it is now being reported that, indeed, the Pakistanis have a much more sophisticated missile capability than the Indians. Assume that as a result of these tests the Pakistanis end up with "useable" warheads to go with those missiles. Unless my speculation above is somehow correct and the Pakistanis somehow go down the tube because of the sanctions blah blah blah, what pray tell will be the end result? The Pakistanis will end up with a better delivery system BUT the Indians will still have the macho satisfaction of having tooted their horn first.
Madness.
42. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 2:58 PM PDT
Madness
Indeed, Pakistan working with the PRC has better theater ballistic missiles than India has *at this time*. So, scenario:
The PRC, identified by India as the primary threat, continues to work with Pakistan. Pakistan improves and begins to deploy theatre nukes. What will India do? The potential for death in an unheard of magnitude!
Madness
43. UnderCoverSquids - May 28, 1998 - 3:10 PM PDT
Wait!
Does anyone here really think that India and Pakistan will engage in nuclear war?
I don't.
I guess I never really thought that the Soviet Union and the United States would either...
44. vonKreedon - May 28, 1998 - 3:23 PM PDT
UCS - Yes, I am afraid that it is all too possible.
OTOH, I am very surprised to find myself still alive and civilization still intact at this point in time, so I make no claims of accurate prediction.
45. marjoribanks - May 28, 1998 - 7:06 PM PDT
Actually, there is little danger of a nuclear war in the subcontinent, especially not between India and Pakistan.
These bombs were aimed at:
1) General electorate malaise regarding self-esteem. The P.M. would have been out in a month if he hadn't gone ahead with them.
2) The CBTB, which is a hoax.
3) Percieved hypocrisy of the G-8 countries who largely let India off with a slap on the wrist.
The losers:
1) America, which is powerless to control its close dependent, Pakistan.
2) Pakistan, which will default massively on its debt burden, setting the national economy back decades.
3) The sanctions, because they will inevitably be lifted on both countries in some capitulation over the CBTB. The US cannot afford to allow complete economic disaster in Pakistan. For instance, the default on some of the approx $50 Billion in external debt would mean the Clinton having to face some pretty pissed-off American bankers. The sanctions against Pakistan are not sustainable on any number of grounds, not least of which is humanitarian.
46. AzureNW - May 28, 1998 - 7:23 PM PDT
Results of a Gallup poll reported in the Pakastani newspaper DAWN on Wednesday indicate most urban Pakistanis believe the chance of a nuclear confrontation with India definitely exists:
"...When asked what the chances of war with India at present were, 43 per cent respondents said the chances were high, whereas 45 per cent said there were modest chances of a war.
Only 12 per cent said there were no chances of a war with India. Two-thirds of Pakistanis (64 per cent) believe that India will use its nuclear weapons if there is a war with Pakistan..."
47. AzureNW - May 28, 1998 - 7:24 PM PDT
Pakastani = Pakistani
you get the idea
48. marjoribanks - May 28, 1998 - 7:32 PM PDT
Franky ANW, I get shivers at the hundreds of possible ways you will misinterpret this cite as well. Here goes anyway. Please note that the only substantive part of the entire piece is the lede. It corroborates what I have been saying all along.
There will be no nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
49. AzureNW - May 28, 1998 - 7:48 PM PDT
marjoribanks -
I occurs to me that we may see the armed standoff between Pakistan and India differently in part because I am used to living in a culture saturated with handguns, so that I *know* accidental shootings *will* happen when guns are available. Promising not to allow anyone to get shot doesn't help much.
50. marjoribanks - May 28, 1998 - 7:56 PM PDT
ANW,
Who the hell is the "we" you refer to?
"accidental shootings" of nukes and firearms are more likely to take place in the USA which practices proliferation of the abandoned and brazen variety regarding these vices. If the country ratified the CBTB, it'd be a better hollow platform from which to speak. Lets not even speak of the other "admitted" members of the nuclear club.
Your "anxieties" about nukes in South Asia are uninformed and misplaced at best, and racist in the worst interpretation.
51. coralreef - May 28, 1998 - 9:54 PM PDT
I think 'we' means you and Azure.
52. ptboya - May 28, 1998 - 10:19 PM PDT
marjori...
"There will be no nuclear war between India and Pakistan."
I wish I could be so sanguine. Shit happens, and especially during wars. How many have these two nations fought since WW II? My memory is dim on the details but I remember three. Unless we are now to believe that a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy will keep the leaders of both nations from actually using these weapons, we should be worried. And with China playing Metternichian (Kissingerian?) games to counterbalance India it gets even hairier.
Re: the question of who began this...we know that Pakistan has been working on nuclear weapons since the early 70's. I happen to know a man, an ex-British Intelligence officer, who discovered the fact that Pakistan was diverting Canadian nuclear technology for weaponry. Pressure, from the US in particular, which as Marjori has pointed out in another thread, has long sided with Pakistan against India, kept the Pakistanis from actually moving to the testing phase. This pressure included both carrots and sticks. Their test today is not simply a response to India. It *had* to have been in the works for some time and India must have gotten wind of its imminency
IMO this is yet another result of the end of the Cold War. Bi-polarism has yielded to multi-polarism and regional conflicts are more difficult to contain. This is the principle reason I don't feel the degree of sanguinity that Marjori expresses.
53. marjoribanks - May 29, 1998 - 4:28 AM PDT
I take back line 1 of post # 50.
54. MrSocko - May 29, 1998 - 4:49 AM PDT
I have to side with marjoribanks on this issue. The official American point of view -- and the kinds of private views seeping through to a forum such as this -- are highly objectionable. Whatever the political direction of the commentary, the line seems to be, "By golly, the world has become a much more dangerous place this past month on account of these, uh, dark-skinned individuals owning nukes. This is just so rich. For all of my life, the world has been terrorized by white nations (sans China) and their bulging warchests -- but hey, that's okay 'cause they're *like us*.
For the record, I don't give a damn if Pakistan or India conducts a few tests. I don't see that it makes the world a jot unsafer. It might even make the subcontinent *more* safe. Whatever the case, it will have none of the bearing on my life of the East-West nuclear duopoloy.
55. FreetoChoose - May 29, 1998 - 5:50 AM PDT
CBTB? Not CTBT?
56. FreetoChoose - May 29, 1998 - 5:52 AM PDT
vonKreedon
"I only wish that the French, Brits and Russians had been willing to participate in the "caning" of India."
Does this mean you think the sanctions were justified? On what basis?
57. FreetoChoose - May 29, 1998 - 5:54 AM PDT
MrSocko
Pure idiocy.
58. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 8:14 AM PDT
A couple of things:
The long nuclear confrontation between the USSR and the USA was terrifying, irresponsible, and, IMO, made stable by MAD. It was only that both sides saw the distinct potential for their own destruction in any use of nukes that made this a stable environment. At this time no such MAD exists in S. Asia, so I see this as an unstable nuclear environment and so extremely dangerous.
I believe the sanctions to be justified on the basis that they could prevent this situation developing into the unstable nuke arms race that it is becoming. Also, it would show that the world community is serious about not allowing other nations to be as irresponsible as the US, USSR(former, now Russion et al), PRC, France, and Britain. Unfortunately of this group only the US acted responsibly in this instance, IMO.
vK
59. ptboya - May 29, 1998 - 8:27 AM PDT
Socko...
'Whatever the political direction of the commentary, the line seems to be, "By golly, the world has become a much more dangerous place this past month on account of these, uh, dark-skinned individuals owning nukes." '
Boy, talk about straw men. I've not seen complexion discussed in this thread before you brought it up; perhaps you could point out even obscure, elliptical references to such.
60. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 8:34 AM PDT
VonKreedon (Message #23)
"Given that there have three wars between Pakistan and India, and one war between India and China, the idea that these conflicts will in the future be between two (or three in a really worst case scenario) nuke armed states bodes very poorly for the peoples of S. Asia."
Talk about mindless extrapolation! You seem unaware that each of the three wars you're talking about broke out precisely because some extra-Asian power (i.e., the United States or the Soviet Union) neutralised the natural counterweight to the aggressor. For example, the Soviet Union signed a "friendship treaty" with Hindustan months before the Hindo-Pakistan War of 1971, explicitly to neutralise China's alliance with Pakistan in that conflict. Pakistan now cannot possibly lose out in such a way again. The point is, war is LESS likely than ever before.
vonKreedon (Message #26)
"As the only nation to ever use nukes, as the nation with the most nukes, we are certainly, IMO, in the irresponsible catagory."
More drivel. The U.S. has been a responsible nuclear power by ANY measure. To suppose that any use of nuclear weapons (i.e., not very powerful bombs, compared to today's, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is irresponsible begs too many questions for my taste. For those who object to my mention of H and N in this way, I refer you to my essay-length discussion of that a while back in one of the threads.
61. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 8:35 AM PDT
Message #58
You really have much too much confidence in the eunuch power, influence and relevance of the United States in world affairs. Sanctions will do NOTHING.
62. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 8:37 AM PDT
UCS (Message #31)
It's somewhat risible that an organisation as inept and incapable and elephantine in its grace as the CIA should be accorded so much foresight and rationality.
Hindustan's nuclear tests happened, and would have happened, no matter what Pakistan had been intending with its research. The BJP had always loudly touted Hindustan's place in the world as a serious power, and that meant nukes. Internal politics dictated the tests.
"Another arms race, anywhere, is good news for the CIA, our defense business and the Pentagon."
This is just silly. Contrary to vulgar street-corner wisdom, U.S. foreign policy isn't founded on the arms business.
"We like watching China be pressured, no matter by whom or what."
If only it were so! That's just much too rational for the boob administration in Washington. I've commented on this at some length in the global thread.
vonKreedon (Message #36)
"I only wish that the French, Brits and Russians had been willing to participate in the 'caning' of India. It is possible, though maybe not likely, that this would have given Pakistan the political standing to resist their own test."
None of this would have made ANY difference. There is a regional logic that you are ignoring, and Hindustan and Pakistan have not a care what the Americans, the Europeans or the Russians think about them.
63. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 8:39 AM PDT
The question is - can they be made to care? As Mike Barnicle said the other night on MSNBC, you've got countries with no cold milk and no hot water and they are dancing in the street because they just exploded nuclear weapons.
So, no.
64. ptboya - May 29, 1998 - 8:55 AM PDT
PE...
"You really have much too much confidence in the eunuch power, influence and relevance of the United States in world affairs. Sanctions will do NOTHING."
And your lack of confidence borders on belief here. The collapse of communism, the collapse of S. African apartheid, the impoverishment of Cuba, the heeling of Milosovich, are at least, reasons enough to question the grand assertion that sanctions never work. Despite this caveat, I too am skeptical about the efficacy of these particular sanctions.
65. UnderCoverSquids - May 29, 1998 - 9:00 AM PDT
Pseudo:
Me: "Another arms race, anywhere, is good news for the CIA, our defense business and the Pentagon."
You: "This is just silly. Contrary to vulgar street-corner wisdom,
U.S. foreign policy isn't founded on the arms business."
It may, or may not, be "founded" on the arms business but it sure as hell gives organizations like the CIA a more tenable mandate. A nuclear arms race outside the "control" of the US is also a good scary tale for hawks in the Pentagon to use when defending their budget. The cold war fear of communism worked wonders, there's been a vaccum ever since (one filled ocassionaly with Iraq, Iran and so on...)
Obviously my opinions are basically ignorant, since I don't work for any of these organizations or study them, but my opinions align nicely with my carefully constructed view of my world and I intend to seek comfort in them in times like these.
66. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
PE - You illiterate meglomaniacal lout, do you even read the words that you blithely cut and paste? You are really too narcissitic to be worth the effort to communicate with, but I wil make the attempt for my own enjoyment. (this is pointy humor, for the pointy humor impaired)
But seriously, I did say that, " It is possible, THOUGH MAYBE NOT LIKELY, that this would have given Pakistan the political standing to resist their own test." Emphasis added. Still, Pakistan did state that they were waiting to see the world's reaction to the Indian tests prior to making a decision on their own tests, so it was worth the attempt, IMO.
Regarding responsible vs. irresponsible nuke states, you and I simply have a fundamental difference of definition. I hold that the production, deployment, and certainly use of nukes is irresponsible. You hold that the these acts may be responsible under certain conditions.
67. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
PT
I have read credible arguments that sanctions actually hurt, rather than helped Botha. I think the Soviets fell because we outspent them, not because we boycotted the Olympics. Sanctions on Cuba have done very little. Same with Iraq
All in all, I think sanctions are feel-good sops for the folks at home when they know they are powerless but can't bear to admit it.
68. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
Boya
You are prone to the post-hoc fallacy so beloved by historians.
• there is no evidence that sanctions are what brought down apartheid down (I still supported them, however) -- there is now a large literature on the subject.
• the impoverishment of Cuba has nothing to do with sanctions; trade with the U.S. would improve little or nothing (but I still oppose the stupid policy of the U.S.);
• the collapse of communism had nothing to do with sanctions -- there were no sanctions.
The only one I can concur with, is the "heeling" of Milosevich. But the Yugoslav crisis can be used to illustrate American irrelevance as its relevance.
69. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:04 AM PDT
Boya
By the way, I have not asserted that "sanctions never work". But since their efficacy is questionable even when the sanctions are international, their efficacy is even more in doubt -- nay, assuredly nil -- when the United States alone imposes them.
70. ptboya - May 29, 1998 - 9:04 AM PDT
• the collapse of communism had nothing to do with sanctions -- there were no sanctions.
Containment = sanctions
71. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:08 AM PDT
PT
Re - containment = sanctions. Well, than war = sanctions.
72. ptboya - May 29, 1998 - 9:11 AM PDT
True enough. War is sanctions by other means.
73. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:11 AM PDT
vonKreedom (Message #66)
The rhythm of your insults is disappointing.
All the same, the assumption that Pakistan may have been able to "resist its own test" assumes that this behaviour could have been modified, because it was behaviour on the margins -- some slight pressure could have induced it to cross that threshold of not testing the weapons. But this is completely contrary to the realities of South Asia. Pakistan tested the weapons, would have tested the weapons, because Hindustan its archrival who had threatend its existence at least once before, had nuclear weapons. Pakistan had to become a nuclear power. India long ago became a nuclear power because China had become one. The desire to have nuclear weapons, at least, was quite inevitable, given the initial link in the chain.
74. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:12 AM PDT
ERRATA
But the Yugoslav crisis can be used to illustrate American irrelevance AS MUCH AS its relevance.
75. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:14 AM PDT
To equate a long-term strategy like containment with a tactic like sanctions, like the pseudo-Clausewitzian equation of sanctions and war, may have some quippy literary value, but nothing more.
76. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:14 AM PDT
PT
Does Jerry Lewis = sanctions against France?
77. PseudoErasmus - May 29, 1998 - 9:17 AM PDT
Contray to American insistence, I have not encountered spontaneous and cloying manifestations of popular joy and love for Jerry Lewis here on the streets of Paris.
78. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 9:18 AM PDT
PE - I agree, I am not much of an insult poet, oh well. I also agree, it was unlikely that Pakistan would not test, but worth a shot (pun intended) IMO. Pakistan stated (well, the government of Pakistan) that it was possible that if the world community responded severely to the Indian tests then Pakistan would not test. Personally it seemed to me that the world community would have to responded severely to India and at the same time explicitly and generously rewarded Pakistan for restraint. Pakistan had the opportunity, if seemed to me, to engage in an interesting for of nuclear blackmail; give us planes, tanks, missles, lots more economic aid, forgive loans, etc. or we light the bomb.
Cheers,
vK
79. Raskolnikov - May 29, 1998 - 9:20 AM PDT
<ahem> The French are right about Jerry Lewis. I have spoken.
80. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:22 AM PDT
Rask
Why does post 79 strike me as the Fray's equivalent of "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore."
You'll regret it, period of isolation, but you'll be back, on top, and then . . . even greater disgrace (a fondness for Patrick Swayze movies?)
81. Raskolnikov - May 29, 1998 - 9:23 AM PDT
109: Now you're getting nasty.
82. ptboya - May 29, 1998 - 9:24 AM PDT
PE...
Re: your 74. I knew what you meant and simply put it down to the haste with which you are attempting to escape usurious internet charges you spoke of.
Re: your 75. I don't have time to make the full case now, thus the quippy pithiness. IMO the case is fairly easily made that the containment policy of the US vis-à-vis the soviets was the equivalent of sanctions; sanctions by another name. If you wish we can return to that sidebar later. Now I must earn my daily bread.
83. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:26 AM PDT
Rask
Actually, and this revelation is thermo-nuclear, if it's Dirty Dancing, Road House, Point Break or Red Dawn . . . I'm not leaving the house.
I fear I have become Agnew to your Nixon.
84. Raskolnikov - May 29, 1998 - 9:27 AM PDT
109: well don't let the nattering nabobs of negativity grind you down. Stand by your shlock!
85. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:28 AM PDT
"Nobody puts baby in a corner."
GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
86. tecarp01 - May 29, 1998 - 10:26 AM PDT
India, in fear of Pakistan, seemingly hoping to puff up its
nationalist chest while scaring the bejeesus out of everybody,
decides to blow a big hole in its ground. So Pakistan,
fearing the hole in India's ground and wanting to return
the big scare retaliates in the form of blowing a big (or bigger)
hole in its own ground.
How big a hole is big enough? Hopefully they'll stop before they
blow holes the size of their respective countries. Unfortunately, that just might be done for them by the other guy.
Would these tactics carry over to individuals?
Say you, for some reason or other, like a threatening dog,
are mad or fearful of your neighbor. What would you do? Well,
clearly the most logical thing to do would be to go dig a hole in
your yard. The bigger the better I guess.
(And as close to the fence as you can get.)
Would your neighbor then respond by going and digging a hole in
his/her yard? I guess so if ...
Meanwhile, your REALLY REALLY self-righteous neighbor, the only one
in the neighborhood who's actually dug a hole in a yard other than
his own and has made it easier for the other neighbors to get hole digging equipment becuase his love of saling things is greater than his desire to participate in the neighborhood commission to make unruly neighbors quit spreading harmful material,is indignant about all this new hole digging and threatens to make all the other neighbors mad at you.
These musings, macro and micro, seem to bode bad consequences for
property values and make me very sad.
Gene Carpenter
87. ScottLoar - May 29, 1998 - 11:18 AM PDT
Why is it that after the first 20 or 30 posts to a subject the content usually and quickly deteriorates to the absurd point that many subsequent posters obviously have not read the very beginnings of the thread?
88. labarjare - May 29, 1998 - 11:46 AM PDT
Re PE's dismissal of the impact of the sanctions. The imposition of sanctions per se might indeed (no - make that probably will) have no material impact on the future course of either India's or Pakistan's nuclear development policies. But, if as seems likely, the economic (and possibly subsequent internal political) impact on Pakistan is materially more adverse due to the sanctions than on India, then I guess in the way they look at things vis-a-vis each other, India will consider itself to be a clear winner.
89. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 11:53 AM PDT
Sanctions have not only the sanctioned nation as the target, but also any nations that might behave as the sanctioned nation. So, sanctions against India are primarily targetted at Pakistan, sanctions against Pakistan are meant to influence N. Korea (hahahaha, I know), Isreal, etc., in addition to trying to influence Pakistan and India to change their behavior.
90. Raskolnikov - May 29, 1998 - 12:36 PM PDT
Yeah, the irony here is that the most likely nations to try to have nukes next are North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya none of whom are particularly vulnerable to the threat of sanctions. I doubt watching India and Pakistan being made "examples" of is really going to have much of an impact on whether anyone else tries to get nukes, since those most likely to kowtow to a sanction threat are least likely to want nukes anyway.
Still, as a matter of policy, I think imposing sanctions is at least a symbolic gesture of disapproval, and if it ain't gonna harm India and Pakistan much, it will certainly harm us even less.
91. AzureNW - May 29, 1998 - 1:38 PM PDT
marjoribanks -
I think your anxieties about my anxieties about nukes in South Asia are uninformed and misplaced at best, and racist in the worst interpretation.
92. AzureNW - May 29, 1998 - 2:02 PM PDT
PseudoErasmus -
Is this essentially what you have said?
1) The risk of nuclear war in South Asia has not increased significantly in the last month.
2) Economic sanctions imposed by US influence in response to nuclear testing will not cause significant hardship for the people of Pakistan.
93. ScottLoar - May 29, 1998 - 3:58 PM PDT
A Basic Primer on Sanctions
Sanctions are popularly meant as measures to coerce a country to follow a particular course of action. Sanctions are effective only to the degree that the economy or polity is harmed, and so
a) there must be unanimity among the most active trading nations with the country sanctioned;
b) the political will of the country must, at some point, become subordinate to the deleterious effects of the sanctions;
c) the sanctions must remain in place long enough to effect a) and b).
I doubt that either India or Pakistan would be the object of a widespread embargo to the detriment of their economies and it seems that thumbing one's nose at that most vocal opponent to nuclear testing, the US, can only enhance the governments' popular appeal to nationalism. It seems the only result (I will not now question the moral intent) of US sanctions is to temporarily satisfy the American electorate (see Message #12 and Message #17) - which has the factual retention of a Snickers bar.
94. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 4:03 PM PDT
Scott - Yeah, we failed to get #1 on your list, but had to go ahead anyway, IMO. Now I am hoping that we can get the Indians and Pakistanis to agree to no more testing and no deployment and then withdraw the sanctions.
Re: the electorate, you are generous.
95. UnderCoverSquids - May 29, 1998 - 4:06 PM PDT
Scott,
"It seems the only result (I will not now question the moral intent) of US sanctions is to temporarily satisfy the American electorate"
Actually, after a relatively unscientific field poll of hicks in Florida and Tennessee, I believe that a decent portion of the American electorate would be perfectly content to watch these two nuke each other.
In fact, if you sold tickets to such an event, the attendance numbers would be very respectable. (Advertising CPM would probably even outdo Sienfeld's last episode!)
96. ScottLoar - May 29, 1998 - 4:57 PM PDT
UnderCoverSquids: Sure most Americans could give a damn less if India and Pakistan reduced each other to ashes(no, I retract that; most Americans would want an end to problem countries and their self-destruction would vindicate Americans' judgement) , which is an entirely separate matter from the moral statement Americans want to make, namely, "nuclear proliferation is a bad thing". Again, see Message #12, Message #17).
97. AzureNW - May 29, 1998 - 6:25 PM PDT
UnderCoverSquids -
"...a decent portion of the American electorate would be perfectly content to watch these two nuke each other..."
As a member of the indecent portion of the American electorate, I think it's fairly obvious that a nuclear war involving India and Pakistan will also involve China and Iran, and thereby the US and the rest of the world. With nuclear weapons aimed at eachother, any major conflict between India and Pakistan is going to cost US tax dollars, possibly US lives. I don't need that in my world. I don't want to pay for it.
98. thomasd - May 29, 1998 - 7:51 PM PDT
A Modest Suggestion For an Effective National ABM System
Back in the '80's, one of the primary criticisms of SDI was that it would be expected to down, perhaps, no more than 80% of incoming missiles, and, given the situation where the US and Soviet Union had committed to a MAD strategy and had enough overkill capability in a full nuclear exchange to make the rubble bounce three or four times over, that at least had the appearance of sounding like a reasonable objection, even though, in actuality, it was terribly myopic and blinkered.
Now, of course, with the concept of MAD en route to the dustbin of history, partly due to the recent apparent failure of the US policy of nuclear containment (a big nod to the present administration here), as well as the evolving multipolar nuclear equation with fewer available warheads for most countries, a nuclear defense with less than total effectiveness looks a great deal more attractive.
But, regardless, is it really impossible to have a nuclear shield for incoming missiles that would stop as many as 97% or more of them? I doubt it. For one thing, there is far less room for advancement in the technology required to project nuclear force over a minimum distance of 4,000 miles (which is about the closest Asia gets to the contiguous US states) than exists for the far newer and, to date, far more underfunded defensive technologies. The other significant factor is that the US has the option of implementing a multistage anti-ICBM system, which is an idea that I had last week:)
99. thomasd - May 29, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
98 continued -
The first defensive stage could be based on technology derived from the carrier group based Aegis system (nyah to bats and goobs), using a sea based system near the shores of a nuclear belligerent. The objective here would be to shoot down ICBMs in the launch or boost phase, ideally before they achieve the post-boost phase.
The second defensive stage would rely primarily on SDI-type technology; since the ICBMs will be outside the atmosphere through most of their journey, orbiting and space based laser technology is particularly suitable here.
The third defensive stage would correspond closely to conventional anti-missile defenses, such as envisioned in the ABM treaty. But, being that the intent here is to have multiple defensive sites around population centers, sharing of defensive capabilities to concentrate them where needed for an enhanced 'kill' percentage(i.e.: at missiles that have survived the first two lines of defenses and have possibly MIRVed) may well be feasible.
How well might this approach work? Well, let's apply that 80% effectiveness ratio to each stage of this sequenced defensive approach and, let's assume that we have 12 MIRVed missiles, each with 10 1 megaton warheads, targeted at, say, New York City, Washington DC and Philadelphia. That's 120 1 megaton warheads, or an average of 40 for each city. Enough to get the job done, wouldn't you say?
100. thomasd - May 29, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
99 concluded -
Okay, the first stage Aegis-derived system takes out about 80% of the 12 missiles right away, leaving 2 to 3. We'll say 3 (75%). The SDI tech-based second stage is still being refined, thus it only gets 67% of the remaining missiles, leaving one (1) for the conventional ABM-type system to handle. Oops, it's heading for DC and, let's just assume it can't be stopped before it MIRVs. What next? Well, knowing that NYC and Philadelphia are now home free, their defenses can be redirected to bolster those of the DC ABM system. Therefore, a kill ratio well over 90% can be expected for the MIRVed warheads. But, OH NO!, one MIRVED warhead gets through and blows away the White House, where some scumbag Democrat president is being serviced by an intern on the Presidential Seal in the Oval Office (thought Spudboy would like that). Oh, well: nobody's perfect! Better luck next time.
Now, to those who have disagreements with the above, raising objections or suggesting refinements on technical or conceptual grounds is fine with me. However, quibbling about details, irrelevancies or side issues or stoopidly resorting to ad-hominems will be dealt with summarily, if at all.
Anyway, jes' thinnin' out loud here.