China and India, Nuclear Threats?
February 13th, 2008
Submitted By: Frank Wallace
During the great session last week with Dr. Ashok Bardhan, something was mentioned that caused me to think of an interesting question. I wondered what Bardhan’s thoughts were on whether or not he felt the rising economic power in India and China would cause a rise in the two countries military power, and if so, would that pose a possible threat to the United States and other countries? Since I never asked my question, I ended up looking on the internet for some answers. While doing so, I came across an interesting article from FPIF called Using India to Keep China at Bay. See also this webpage for another in depth look at the China, US, and India relations.
In August 2007, India and the US reached a bilateral agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation. Proponents of the agreement argue it will bring India closer to the US at a time when the two countries are forging a strategic relationship to pursue their common interests in fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, and preventing the domination of Asia by any single power. But some critics in the US say the deal fundamentally reverses half a century of US nonproliferation efforts and potentially contributes to a nuclear arms race in Asia.
This arms race could occur for two different reasons. One reason is because of the history between China and India. Experts worry US nuclear aid to India could foster a dangerous nuclear rivalry between India and China. Though India has a strong interest in building economic relations with China, New Delhi is still wary of China’s military rise in the region. Plus, India and China did fight a brief war in 1962. The second reason surrounds relationships with Pakistan. Since 9/11, Pakistan has been a strong ally with the United States, but they have not received a similar deal on nuclear energy from the US. Some experts say this apparent US favoritism toward India could increase the nuclear rivalry between the two competitive nations, and potentially raise tensions in the already dangerous region.
With this background information, I put forward this question to you:
Do you think that this agreement might cause more harm than good in the world? Could it make China become a possible threat now or in the future to the United States or the rest of the world? And if so, what can be done about it?
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China, India
12 Comments Add your own
1. Chris Carr | February 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
China is building up its military as a combination of showing hard and soft power around the world, and particularly in Asia. Part of this relates to Taiwan.
Be careful about the data thrown around by pundits re: the China military build up issue. The lens you use to look at these issues is important. For example, the Chinese will argue that in 2007 they spent 45 billion on their military; the US military budget for fiscal 2008 was proposed to rise to 623 billion dollars (this is not a typo). The US has roughly 5 percent of the world’s population; China roughly 20 percent. When other countries in the world see a number like 623 billion, they go nuts, justified or not. In the case of China, when the US asks them why they are increasing their military spending and to go a step further and explain what they are spending it on, and they then see that our own budget is up to 623 billion, they get really, really, really angry. This in turn also plays right into the, “The West just wants to keep us down and we are victims” nationalism rhetoric card that Beijing can/will whip up when it suits the CCP’s needs
Side question: The above relates to Dr. Morris time with you and Fall quarter talk — do you think anybody in the Pentagon has even/ever read a history book or two about China and the Opium Wars, their import, and the carving up of China by colonial powers, and how this has fueled resentment toward the West that lingers even today, and then analyzed whether their/the Pentagon’s public relations strategy of “China, explain to use why you are spending so much more money on your military and then also tell us how you are spending it” is effective in light of such history and nationalistic feelings?.
To suggest that the Chinese military now or in the near future can go toe-to-toe with the US military in a traditional “mano-mano” war is wishful thinking (and the Chinese know this). But, both sides do have nukes and that makes it complex and interesting. What the US policy makers and taxpayers also need to appreciate and keep in mind is that the if the issue is important enough to China (e.g., Taiwan, and maybe in the future — energy/oil because per Dr. Bardhan’s talk you saw how important growth and Chinese need for energy is and will be in the future), they have and will not hesitate to send and lose a million men to try and win the conflict. And this is where it would get interesting and gut check time for the US — we are up to 4,000 plus lost men and women in Iraq and are people are getting queasy. We lost 50,000 plus in Vietnam (no small number) and pulled out because the public could no longer take seeing those bodies come home in a bag.
Finally, back to the idea of how to interpret data, the above figures I cite (from Washington Post article; but I have seen said figures elsewhere as well) are also misleading — both China and the US likely spend far more than these 45 billion and 623 billion per year numbers on their military. These are just the numbers both sides make available to the public. If you think both sides disclose their real/true number, please let me sell you some swampland in Florida.
My vote? It will be a heck of a lot cheaper to figure out now, how to engage the Chinese (and India, Pakistan, the Russians, etc.) through peace, trade and commerce rather than through the military and trying to gain advantage through the pissing match called military spending. And that is one of the goals behind this trip and course; how can we learn to get our butts over there and more effectively and proactively reach out to, work with and engage this part of the world? You are already well ahead of the curve — many Americans can find China on the map, but I know a number of people who could not find India on the map if their life depended on it.
2. Nick Miura | February 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Though I agree with everyone’s comments until now, I feel I have to express an opposing viewpoint - just for fun. The 2009 military budget is 515.4B, not 623B. And what we spend it on is not some big secret, go to http://www.budget.mil to see for yourself - click on the justification summary link. Over a third of that money goes directly to pay for wages, healthcare, housing, etc. Another third goes into strategic development (mostly R&D and new technology). The last third goes to operations and war fighting.
Now, I’m all for peace and negotiations, but building weapons is what the United States does best. It dominates the federal R&D budget. If you think we have a lopsided trade deficit now, just imagine what it would be like if we didn’t sell planes, and weapons, and nuclear technology to other countries. Here’s the kicker though, we can only sell outdated technology or else these countries will use our own weapons against us, so we constantly need to upgrade our own technologies.
I don’t believe that we’ll ever be attacked by India or China, or for that matter, China and India will attack each other. There is simply too much economic dependence. That being said, I do sense there are lots of tensions in their respective parts of the world and can see why they want U.S. military support and weaponry. I don’t see anything wrong with supporting countries as long as these countries use the weapons to support peace and defense and not go on the offensive. Our agreements with China are less solid because I don’t think we’ve quite figured out what their intentions are on the world stage. if the can prove that they will not attack Taiwan and Tibet, then I’m sure the United States would be glad to help develop their nuclear and military programs.
3. Lindsay Leaver | January 9th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
And since the current economic crisis there is even more economic dependence. Every year China, America, and India seem to overlap more and more. Getting into a war or military scuffle with China seems like a long shot and the US seems to have much more pressing military concerns. Obviously we have the two wars we are in, but there is also Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Tensions with those countries are a lot higher than with China.
I agree with Chris Carr that one of the most important things we can do is engage China and India by learning, traveling, trading, and working together before we are in a situation where all our military money in the world can’t save us from the sheer size and numbers of their army.
4. Phil Hamer | February 9th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
China has also seen what engaging in war with other countries has done to the US economy. At a time when their economy continues to grow and their country continues to get richer and richer, getting into scuffles with other countries is the last thing on China’s to do list.
China would love more than anything to use their strength to take back Taiwan, but they know that doing so would only interrupt their progress especially since it would inevitably lead to a head butt with the United States. I’m sure it drives them crazy. Tensions get high every now and then, but the status quo remains.
Hmm. Focusing on economic growth and not on war.
What a concept!
5. Jay Ponto | February 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
This is a very touchy subject when considering the possible ramifications that could result from the US helping any country accelerate their nuclear technology. Pakistan’s alliance with the United States was rekindled after 9/11, along with billions of dollars of aid to fund Pakistani military operations to assist in fighting terrorists on the border with Afghanistan. The strong relationship the US has with Pakistan is centered around combating terrorism, and assisting India (Pakistan’s undisputed rival) by providing nuclear technology to New Delhi would cause immense harm to US-Pakistani relations. In a time when Pakistan is a necessary ally to successfully fight terrorists in Afghanistan (which is entirely another topic in itself), contributing unnecessary nuclear aid to India should be out of the question.
With populations in China and India as large as they are, it would be unwise of either country to start a war. Preservation of the state is any government’s primary concern, and the threat of any use of nuclear weapons in the region would cause catastrophic damage. The fact that India merely possesses any nuclear weapons (about 50-150 warheads according to current estimates) should be enough of a deterrent IF China ever thought of conducting a sizable campaign against India. India’s strategy should be centered ground and air combat over border regions, should its borders ever be contested by China again.
6. Erika Bylund | February 12th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
My opinion of the nuclear arms race is that it is more about keeping up than getting ahead. Many of the countries popping out of the woodwork in recent years, stunning the world with announcements of their nuclear testing and active pursuit of nuclear armament, are countries who now want to proclaim themselves as contenders for prominent positions in the global arena- and understandably so. Who would want to be left behind? Countries like Pakistan and North Korea want to be acknowledged and taken seriously. Just as the U.S. wants to ensure that no one Asian country dominates the continent, so other countries also desire that no one country (like the U.S.) has unchecked nuclear capabilities dominating the world.
The issue of nuclear proliferation is a growing concern as more countries are starting to edge forward in economic strength. Nuclear capabilities is a common language that commands legitimacy and forces others to take notice. As long as there is disparity in power, there will be a push to meet the “nuclear bench mark.” So what should we do about it?
I hate to sound like a psychotherapist about the issue or downplay the severity of the situation, but as long as there are countries that feel disempowered or disadvantaged, there will be military (and nuclear) competition. What it comes down to is who has more to lose? The desire for power is an issue that would be hard to deal with in concrete terms. But ensuring that everybody has enough- freedom, food, clean water, shelter, opportunity- is something that can be tackled in concrete terms and might assuage the military tensions. The rising standard of living in India and China are proof that shrinking economic disparity can can be achieved, but we have a long way to go.
7. Michael Minasian | March 10th, 2010 at 8:55 am
I think that this agreement has the potential to backfire, however much like the cold war, the world today is a constant set of checks and balances. As long as someone has a deterrent in place for an activity which would harm another, they are much less likely to do it.
One of the main problems with terrorism is that there is no specific deterrent, outside of the fact that we are attempting to find terrorists and bring them to justice. This is counter to other problems, when a country takes an offensive it is easy to threaten or punish the entire country for their actions. When individuals act on behalf of a small group, it is harder to bring about justice.
8. Frederick Peemoeller | March 12th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I don’t think that civilian nuclear cooperation between India and the US heightens antagonism between India’s neighboring countries. Nuclear power is an extremely efficient power source that has little emissions, and it is used in all of its neighboring countries. China and Pakistan both have nuclear plants and also nuclear warheads. I understand that the cooperation with the US enables them to have more nuclear material than other countries, but a nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb. I am sure China has enough nuclear warheads to inflict insurmountable damage to India and vice versa. The cooperation with the US in civilian use in my opinion does not give India the advantage due to China’s already large weaponry.
9. Vitus Holzner | March 18th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I tI tend to agree with Fred on this matter. India and Pakistan both have sufficient nuclear firepower to wipe each other off the map so supporting India in its nuclear capabilities doesn’t really tilt the balance to one side or another.
However I think there is a main difference between India and Pakistan. While India is a democracy Pakistan still has a military dictatorship. The political landscape in Pakistan is by far less stable than India so even though the US is on good terms with the current Pakistani leadership we do not know who comes next. And while its highly unlikely that the Indian people would elect a radical leader it’s not out of the realm of possible scenarios that we could see a Taliban-like regime in Pakistan.
10. Michael Harroch | March 18th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I agree with Fred. I do not think a civilian nuclear partnership between the Untied Stated and India will trigger or fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. In fact, India and Pakistan are already been in such a race and have been for decades. As far as China is concerned, I do not think this will cause them to re-think their military funding or programs.
However, these and other regional powers could use this as justification for future aspirations that relate to nuclear technology, whether civilian or military.
11. Chris Phippen | March 19th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I, too, agree with the past few comments. If there is going to be a nuclear arms race in Asia, the United States’ agreement with India will not have triggered it. One cannot worry about past events such as the war between India and China in 1962 because whatever disagreement occurred was obviously settled or at least pushed to the side for the time being. The United States shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not having this pact with India will settle negatively on other countries, there will always be someone out there who opposes. Just like with the agreement the US has with Israel; we cannot worry about hurting the ‘feelings’ of Palestine with our aid to Israel. There are sides that have to be chosen. Our aid to India will not be the cause of a nuclear war, it would be China’s desire and need to be ‘a single power’ that would set the world off balance.
12. Yuxiang Gao | March 19th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
India and USA have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole, China has enough nucleae weapons to do the same thing. Pakistan may not have that much, but enough to wipe the whole India. That’s the really meaning of nuclear weapon: maybe i can’t beat you, but i can die with you.
Nuclear weapon has huge risk for all human-being, but on the other side, it keeps the balance of India and Pakistan. Without it, Pakistan may disappear several years ago.
I am not saying it is good thing that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, instead, I totally support nuclear limitations
beacasue it is too dangerous for this world.
But you have to say, on some level, nuclear reduce the number of wars.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed