It is a discussion. Please offer your points of disagreement.Disagree with almost everything.
It is a discussion. Please offer your points of disagreement.Disagree with almost everything.
You build weapons for fighting wars, not for show-off. Whatever weapons a State has ultimately get used in war. Please read Mahabharat carefully. This book is a must read by military enthusiasts.
1) Japan, South Korea are all under the heaviest protection of USA. I think its common sense for any investor, about the protection a country can offer to its industrial infrastructure and investors; basically in avoiding a warfar at the most.1. Nukes are NOT related to investor confidence. There are many countries (examples Japan and South Korea) which enjoy excellent investor confidence without having any nukes. Investor confidence relates to quality and quantity of manpower and conducive government setup.
2. Nukes are absolutely unlikely to prevent warfare. China completely ignores India's nuclear capability. If you deploy one, it will deploy 3 against you. Pakistan is said to have more warheads compared to India now. India's stance has not capped warheads of adversaries.
3. India/Pakistan situation is different from USA/USSR. they could maintain a "cold war" due to being separated geographically. India has long active borders.
4. India's direct diplomacy with adversaries is rather ineffective.
5. Not invading other countries despite other countries causing trouble in India cannot be called a virtue. Some people call it "weakness".
We build weapons to show off the capability and the " know how" of things to the world. This is a good deterrent in many cases and creates a level ground for our diplomats and for our forces. No soverign nation(Who excatly knows the meaning of "sovergnity" and sensibility) will want to cost the exchequer with an unwanted war, hence it is of utmost importance for any nation to AVOID war BUT WIN the situation. It shows how mature your country is in its policies and outlook.You build weapons for fighting wars, not for show-off. Whatever weapons a State has ultimately get used in war. Please read Mahabharat carefully. This book is a must read by military enthusiasts.
More and more destructive weapons ultimately lead to catastrophic war.
If that is what you are planning for (a big war - with the attitude kill or be killed), then it does not make any sense in arbitrarily capping warheads at 100.
Why do you think india should abandon nuke with the neighbors we have?It is a discussion. Please offer your points of disagreement.
:shocked:India's situation is very complicated. The economy remains dependent on foreign technology and capital. The industrial development and social development is inadequate.
The proper development and deployment of nukes is very difficult in such situation.
India has the manpower and potential to defend itself with conventional means. Nuclear is not necessary.
We need not compete with China on nuclear weapons. A strong spiritual country like India who believes in Karma knows that killing non-combatants is sinful. Indiscriminate killing by nukes is illogical.
I shall reply to your point #5. When a war starts, both parties blame each other. It is very hard to prove who invaded. If a missile takes around 10-15 minutes from Pakistan to India, and assuming that a response is given as soon as the missile launch is detected by India, there will only be a difference of a few minutes between warheads exploding in both sides.1) Japan, South Korea are all under the heaviest protection of USA. I think its common sense for any investor, about the protection a country can offer to its industrial infrastructure and investors; basically in avoiding a warfar at the most.
Quality and quantity of manpower is proved in many industries by our workforce, already.
2) So far nukes are the one that prevented the war between many countries, its more of a deterrent asset so far.
3) India has been in cold war with Pak for quiet a loooong time and that too very frequently. Skimirshes happen, but thats about it so far.
4) Diplomacy policies has yielded result in many cases and prevented quiet a few stunts from escalating.(Atleast Govt to Govt)
5 My intention to your post was that India wont use her aresenal on other countries for an invasion and as a country we are more sensible in using our technology for destructive purposes.
First I really appreciate and commend your post.:shocked:
Sir,
If India is at war with Pakistan and China,and they decide to decimate your army battalions,armored corps and military hardware and installation with a barrage of tactical nukes.How do you suggest to retaliate or even able to hold ground under these circumstances,without nukes?
The Japanese may have stocks of fissile material but just the decision not to build a bomb is a courageous decision.The funny part here is that Japan also maintains a sizable stockpile of nuclear material that can be weaponized in as little as six months if necessary by some estimates, Though the pacifist constitution eschews nuclear capability the JSDF still has it all the same.
Japan Has Nuclear 'Bomb in the Basement,' and China Isn't Happy - NBC News
� Report: Japan Secretly Developing Nuclear Weapons Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
DISAGREE . The rule is that you should have the same ,powerful weapons your potential enemy has. You can not fight with a knife with some one who has a powerful, machine gun . If both of you have machine guns ..it might cause peace and even friendship.India's situation is very complicated. The economy remains dependent on foreign technology and capital. The industrial development and social development is inadequate.
The proper development and deployment of nukes is very difficult in such situation.
India has the manpower and potential to defend itself with conventional means. Nuclear is not necessary.
We need not compete with China on nuclear weapons. A strong spiritual country like India who believes in Karma knows that killing non-combatants is sinful. Indiscriminate killing by nukes is illogical.
Having only fissile material is not the point, the point is that the Japanese have access to the technology as well along with the ability to weaponize in six months. As far as pacts are concerned the Japanese know that the pacts will not be broken , the Americans need the approximately 90 odd bases and facilities they maintain in the Japanese island chain to stay globally relevant, the presence of these scattered bases from Tokyo to Okinawa guarantees the US nuclear umbrella. Should the Americans choose to leave in the future it'll take many years for them to vacate all these facilities more than time enough to make the bomb if need be.The Japanese may have stocks of fissile material but just the decision not to build a bomb is a courageous decision.
Saying that Japan is under US umbrella is not the correct way to see it. Each nation has to formulate its security policy. Pacts are fickle and you can never trust the long term intentions of the other party.
If your logic is correct, Shri Rama would have never gone to fight Ravan. What did Shri Rama had? Bows and arrows that he made from bamboo in the forest.DISAGREE . The rule is that you should have the same ,powerful weapons your potential enemy has. You can not fight with a knife with some one who has a powerful, machine gun . If both of you have machine guns ..it might cause peace and even friendship.
India is not Japan. India has always held the moral high ground. Why change now.Having only fissile material is not the point, the point is that the Japanese have access to the technology as well along with the ability to weaponize in six months. As far as pacts are concerned the Japanese know that the pacts will not be broken , the Americans need the approximately 90 odd bases and facilities they maintain in the Japanese island chain to stay globally relevant, the presence of these scattered bases from Tokyo to Okinawa guarantees the US nuclear umbrella. Should the Americans choose to leave in the future it'll take many years for them to vacate all these facilities more than time enough to make the bomb if need be.
United States Forces Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because the moral high ground will count for nothing when cj-10s and df-21s rain down on our cities, you cannot teach morality to a world that respects only strength. Teaching morality is what lost us two thirds of kashmir.India is not Japan. India has always held the moral high ground. Why change now.
However if India does want to keep its nukes, then it should remove the pretense and terms like "minimum deterrence" should be thrown in dustbin. A rational policy of deploying nukes on silo based and mobile missiles, aircrafts, submarines and ships will be necessary which adds to at least 400-500 warheads.
All nations that deploy nukes have dedicated crack protection teams deployed with every nuclear missile. In India during peacetime the airforce and army deploy only conventional weapons. Only in the event of imminent nuclear strike will the warheads and missiles be mated,the warheads are stored in super secure hardened locations protected by large numbers of troops 24x7.Wider dispersal is also a recipe for a nuke falling into a wrong hand. How can it be prevented?
The British would love to see a nuclear war between India and China.Because the moral high ground will count for nothing when cj-10s and df-21s rain down on our cities, you cannot teach morality to a world that respects only strength. Teaching morality is what lost us two thirds of kashmir.
If possible please read dragonfire by humphrey hawksley. I found it to be a most realistic portrayal of a nuclear war between India and China, if India continues to have an excessively moralistic gandhian outlook that is!