Comments on: China and India, Nuclear Threats?

By: Yuxiang Gao

Yuxiang Gao — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:34:32 +0000

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.

By: Chris Phippen

Chris Phippen — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:06:22 +0000

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.

By: Michael Harroch

Michael Harroch — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:14:21 +0000

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.

By: Vitus Holzner

Vitus Holzner — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:05:54 +0000

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.

By: Frederick Peemoeller

Frederick Peemoeller — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:52:03 +0000

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.

By: Michael Minasian

Michael Minasian — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:55:28 +0000

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.

By: Erika Bylund

Erika Bylund — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:38:24 +0000

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.

By: Jay Ponto

Jay Ponto — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:26:42 +0000

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.

By: Phil Hamer

Phil Hamer — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:50:41 +0000

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!

By: Lindsay Leaver

Lindsay Leaver — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:34:59 +0000

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.