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. Matt Sprecher | February 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Frank, I think this a great topic of discussion. When this agreement first took place it seemed like it came out of no where. Although it may seem like the creation of a new rivalry I feel, and have always felt, that this is simply the creation of a bond between us and another great power of the world. Sure, the tension between India and China has been bad in the past but I think this could be the opportunity to bridge that gap.
Considering how the US has bettered it’s business and political relations with India and China over the past five years, this could be our chance to neutralize that threat and try to fuse that bridge. In fact, I think it would be even more irresponsible for us not to try and mend that broken relationship. Two big powers, looking to make their mark in the world’s economy, to me it sounds like our contributions could alter this potentially catastrophic rivalry . If we dont make a point to make these relationships work it doesn’t who has nuclear arms because it clearly doesnt look like relations between India and China are getting better by itself.
2. Chris Carr | February 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
This is a good question, and an important one.
I do not have a good answer, other than to say I think it is far too early to say and it’s too premature to predict how India and China’s recent surge of “mutualism” (that is, China and India are now cooperating on a number of fronts, but mutual tension between them still exists, including how the US and India cozy up to each other) will play out, not only for them but their bilateral or multilateral treaty partners.
As one Chinese premier responded just a few years ago when he was asked if the French Revolution had been a success, “It’s to early to tell.”
Just think of that statement for a minute. The sense of time and how it shapes perspective is just so very different in Asia than in our part of the world. For example, and as I type this, the Obama, McCain and Clinton camps are probably conducting 20 different focus groups to get a sense of how voters feel about them this very hour as they try to determine how to move forward in our system that makes them pander to people on an almost millisecond basis to get elected; and then next hour they will do another 20 focus group sessions to update their data and plan, and then another and then …. well, you get the picture.
3. David Zarcone | February 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I know that you are asking our opinions of the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, but I have decided to comment in a different manner. Right after you and I discussed this topic of China being a threat to the US a few weeks ago, I wen’t to a computer and did a little bit of research. I don’t recall any of the articles that I read but I do remember some facts from their contents. I know that the Chinese navy is rapidly expanding its fleet of nuclear submarines. In fact, they now have more submarines than Russia and are continuing to produce them at an amazing rate. In the next few years China will have more submarines than the US, but they still wont be as effective and capable.
This all doesn’t seem to be that important since China is neither friend or foe, yet the scary thing is they are investing so much in these weapons without explaining why they are making them. However, experts believe that the military buildup of submarines is due to the possible conflict over Taiwan. China would use force to stop US intervention in trying to get independance for Taiwan. Sorry for getting off topic Frank, but I thought this was interesting information and you might think it relates.
4. 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.
5. Deanna Haskell | February 16th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I recently read a book that discussed aspects of China’s military history. It discussed some of the conflicts between China and India and how the United States comments created false hopes of support for one side or the other. This phenomenon seems to continue. History is doomed to repeat itself. It seems that the Chinese may see this agreement with India as favoritism and that they may not be pleased. I agree with Dr. Carr’s comment that it would be cheaper to figure out how to engage other country’s through peace not military.
6. Andrew Steen | February 18th, 2008 at 7:22 am
It’s hard to imagine this being healthy. Why does the U.S. want to increase the size of the match under China’s butt? This U.S./India agreement seems like it won’t discourage China from much, but will mainly promote even more nationalism. China is maybe the last nation that will just roll over and accept oppression. This may be a little shy of oppression, but it’s not exactly encouraging for China, and why would they not get upset about it?
7. Andrew Steen | February 18th, 2008 at 7:30 am
But then again it is too early to tell. Maybe that agreement began centuries of peace between the three countries.
8. Dena Malloy | February 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I don’t think we should be helping anyone arm themselves. In fact, I think we should spend less money arming ourselves, too. We have capabilities to blow up the entire earth several times over so why do we need more weapons?
Q: Why are there so many guns in Iraq?
A: Because we sold/gave them the guns.
This doesn’t seem like a very good foreign policy. I don’t care that India is an ally, we shouldn’t be spreading weapons.
9. Darold Parsons | February 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It will be interesting to see how China responds to their increasing share in world power. Historically, china has always sat at the throne of the world and, as we have learned, the rest of the world bowed in an attempt to appease them. If China should gain the largest share of power someday, I wonder if they will return to their role in the throne, or if they will pull up a chair and sit with the rest of the world. I also wonder if China can be influenced by methods other than those of military power. Only the future will tell if the US has made a bad move by putting the fangs in the Tigers mouth. Will this fuel the fire in the dragon’s belly? Hopefully it will not, and hopefully we will not be bit by the Tiger. Does the future hold peace and love? All historical signs point to no, but then again it seems the world has to learn someday.
10. Naomi Guy | February 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Sharing is caring, Right? Well not anymore. It seems to be this was an act of strategy that might turn around and bite us back. The government saw this as a way to build up our relationship with India and give more leverage to democracy, but what they have done is fueled the fire with China and Pakistan. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that any country that is not given military secrets and that invents the technology on their own, is more likely to use it because of residual anger and spite. This is not good for us. We are pushing countries to create more weapons, to just kill us in the end…
I agree with Dena, cut out the spending and sharing…
11. Shasta Palmer | February 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Wasn’t there just a post on here about how in debt we are as country? Now to me, being in debt, cutting funding from schools, and then spending 623 billion in military does not make a whole lot of sense. Why are we not using some of that 623 billion to m\pay off debts and keep our dollar value up?
Anyway, back to the question at hand. I think it is a good thing that we are attempting to make friends with India, but I think it could be a bad thing too because it may seem that we “playing favorites”. Should we see them as nuclear threats?Probably no more than they see us as nuclear threats. Realistically, if any one country starting firing nuclear weapons we would all be in a lot of trouble. I assume no one country would set still and take nuclear weapons being fired on them without firing back, which would lead to an all around bad situation for everyone. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to this and we can stay on good terms.
12. 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.
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