|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: Rogue Nation Long-Range Nuclear Missile Capable |
 |
|
India cheers as Agni-V puts it among major missile powers
| Quote: |
India demonstrated its Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability by successfully launching its most powerful and longest range missile, Agni-V, from the Wheeler Island off the Odisha coast.
The 17-metre-long surface-to-surface ballistic missile lifted off majestically from a rail mobile launcher at 8.04 a.m. After a flight time of 20 minutes, the missile re-entry vehicle impacted the pre-designated target point more than 5,000 km away in the Indian Ocean with a high degree of accuracy. |
As a non-signatory to the NPT, India is a rogue nuclear weapons power. Furthermore, India continues to test nuclear weapons in contravention of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (adopted but not ratified).
The US's response to India's nuclear ambitions?
U.S.�India Civil Nuclear Agreement
Obama backs India on permanent UN Security Council seat |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think this says more about the NPT than it does India. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
The NPT is a resounding success, and a model international treaty.
| Quote: |
At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25-30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over 40 years later, only four states are not parties to the NPT, and they are the only additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons.
The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain: �the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals�. The treaty is reviewed every five years in meetings called Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even though the treaty was originally conceived with a limited duration of 25 years, the signing parties decided, by consensus, to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions during the Review Conference in New York City on May 11, 1995. |
The NPT rogue powers are Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. I know people on this board regard India as the exceptional power on that list (in the US they would also regard Israel as special), but the thread title is meant to challenge that assumption.
| Quote: |
| India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. |
India's NPT dissent is lonely and extremely relativistic. Its appeal to ethics is hollow. The NPT's utility is apparent. And so are the motivations behind India's desire for nuclear freedom of action. Remember that as early as 1974, India abused the trust of other powers when it detonated the "smiling buddha."
| Quote: |
| India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. Pakistan reportedly has between 80 and 120 warheads according to the former head of its strategic arms division. India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment." |
Also, India failed to sign the NPT because it wanted to test ICBMs well into the 21st century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not for overturning the NPT by any means, but this is going to happen under the kind of regime it sets up. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons in the world, and the world's greatest powers possess them. The NPT was set up by countries already possessing such weapons, essentially making a club of powerful countries possessing the ultimate deterrent and telling everyone else that their not allowed to follow suit. Of course countries, no matter how law-abiding they are otherwise, are going to want to increase their nuclear capabilities and become full members of the nuclear club. India's position is relativistic largely because most other potential players are already full members. Long term, if a country wants to increase their capabilities, they will go underground and ultimately achieve their goals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| The NPT was set up by countries already possessing such weapons, essentially making a club of powerful countries possessing the ultimate deterrent and telling everyone else that their not allowed to follow suit. Of course countries, no matter how law-abiding they are otherwise, are going to want to increase their nuclear capabilities and become full members of the nuclear club. |
The history of the NPT shows your reductionist assessment wrong. India, Pakistan, and Israel never joined. The only country to exit the NPT is North Korea. For forty years, the NPT has limited proliferation by offering the non-nuclear powers a great deal: aid for civilian nuclear development and assurances against nuclear attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| The NPT was set up by countries already possessing such weapons, essentially making a club of powerful countries possessing the ultimate deterrent and telling everyone else that their not allowed to follow suit. Of course countries, no matter how law-abiding they are otherwise, are going to want to increase their nuclear capabilities and become full members of the nuclear club. |
The history of the NPT shows your reductionist assessment wrong. India, Pakistan, and Israel never joined. The only country to exit the NPT is North Korea. For forty years, the NPT has limited proliferation by offering the non-nuclear powers a great deal: aid for civilian nuclear development and assurances against nuclear attack. |
But it isn't as if there was no reason for their reluctance to join. At the end of the day, a nuclear weapon is the most strategically valuable deterrent available to a country that wishes to increase its power. Civilian nuclear development is all well and good, but electricity is not the equal of the world's ultimate deterrent.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're disagreeing about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think India and Pakistan, especially Pakistan, is far more troubling than Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah it says a lot that India is allowed to go through with missile testing.
They've also done tests with nuclear bombs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I think India and Pakistan, especially Pakistan, is far more troubling than Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. |
Yes. Its easier to be sympathetic to Iran once you view its neighbors. Israel, Pakistan, and India all exist outside the NPT. Iran's failures stem from pushing the boundaries of the NPT and trying to reconcile valid sovereignty concerns with its treaty obligations. And unfortunately for Iran, it doesn't have the exceptional status that either of those three countries enjoy with the US. Indeed, the Iranian gov't has made many missteps with the US, and is now without options ever since the demise of the Soviet Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
T
The NPT rogue powers are Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. I know people on this board regard India as the exceptional power on that list (in the US they would also regard Israel as special), but the thread title is meant to challenge that assumption.
[ |
"rogue powers"?
The first three never signed the treaty and North Korea withdrew from it.
While the latter may be called a rogue nation it hardly fits the first three who never signed the treaty.
Perhaps you should look closer to home?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619
| Quote: |
By Steve Rendall
The U.S. is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That view, far from exotic or extreme, was expressed repeatedly by arms control experts and international officials at the month-long NPT review conference held at the U.N. in May. It is embraced by U.S. establishment figures such as former President Jimmy Carter and Kennedy-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
In a Washington Post op-ed (3/28/05), a month before the conference opened, Carter wrote: "While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons."
McNamara was quoted earlier this year (Foreign Policy, 5-6/05) bluntly declaring the U.S. a nuclear outlaw: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous." |
(Full article at link.)
It's been going on for years now. (article is from 2005).
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue May 01, 2012 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eventually we will have a nuclear war on Earth. Hopefully it will be a relatively limited one.
The US, England, France and the USSR have all been fairly reluctant to use nukes, so there was little chance since the end of WWII for such an exchange.
However, China has never been in that kind of moral category - just too practical to use them.
The subsequent members of the nuclear club are all in possession of modest nuclear arsenals that are intended to be used - each of them would use them if they felt the need, and given the relative weakness of their conventional forces, such a need could easily arise.
So, from Israel to China we have an arc of instability that could easily rise to a limited nuclear war.
(North Korea is a special case with unique factors that should keep it's very limited nuclear capability bottled up.)
If Iran gets nukes, if any other nations in the region get nukes, or if Pakistan is not de-nuked, we will likely see an exchange within the next two decades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Eventually we will have a nuclear war on Earth. Hopefully it will be a relatively limited one.
The US, England, France and the USSR have all been fairly reluctant to use nukes, so there was little chance since the end of WWII for such an exchange.
However, China has never been in that kind of moral category - just too practical to use them.
The subsequent members of the nuclear club are all in possession of modest nuclear arsenals that are intended to be used - each of them would use them if they felt the need, and given the relative weakness of their conventional forces, such a need could easily arise.
So, from Israel to China we have an arc of instability that could easily rise to a limited nuclear war.
(North Korea is a special case with unique factors that should keep it's very limited nuclear capability bottled up.)
If Iran gets nukes, if any other nations in the region get nukes, or if Pakistan is not de-nuked, we will likely see an exchange within the next two decades. |
I think your pretty off on this. You are assuming that those in power in the Middle East aren't rational. They all seem fairly rational, and more importantly mostly concerned with remaining in power. If Iran gets nukes, there is Israel and the United States to stop them from using them. Remember, Iran hasn't attacked any one using conventional forces since the revolution (I know they support lots of other groups, but that isn't the same, and their is no indication that support would extend to a Nuke as it would be pretty easy to figure out who gave it to them)
The part about Pakistan strikes me as weird as well. I can think of almost nothing that would make the world safer than de-nuking Pakistan. I mean we are talking about a country where many parts are lawless, factions of the government sponsor terrorism on a massive scale, and the population is largely hostile to the west. I would be surprised if India used the nuke, it might be used as an unstated threat to contain Pakistan, but probably not more than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
"rogue powers"?
The first three never signed the treaty and North Korea withdrew from it.
While the latter may be called a rogue nation it hardly fits the first three who never signed the treaty. |
So your point is that, if North Korean and Iran had never signed the treaty, their path to nuclear armament would be as clear as India's?
Shouldn't successive governments in a country be able to exit treaties signed by previous governments? I don't see any rational in a population being bounded to a document signed by a simple majority of one session of their legislative branch decades before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Eventually we will have a nuclear war on Earth. Hopefully it will be a relatively limited one.
The US, England, France and the USSR have all been fairly reluctant to use nukes, so there was little chance since the end of WWII for such an exchange.
However, China has never been in that kind of moral category - just too practical to use them.
The subsequent members of the nuclear club are all in possession of modest nuclear arsenals that are intended to be used - each of them would use them if they felt the need, and given the relative weakness of their conventional forces, such a need could easily arise.
So, from Israel to China we have an arc of instability that could easily rise to a limited nuclear war.
(North Korea is a special case with unique factors that should keep it's very limited nuclear capability bottled up.)
If Iran gets nukes, if any other nations in the region get nukes, or if Pakistan is not de-nuked, we will likely see an exchange within the next two decades. |
I think your pretty off on this. You are assuming that those in power in the Middle East aren't rational. They all seem fairly rational, and more importantly mostly concerned with remaining in power. If Iran gets nukes, there is Israel and the United States to stop them from using them. Remember, Iran hasn't attacked any one using conventional forces since the revolution (I know they support lots of other groups, but that isn't the same, and their is no indication that support would extend to a Nuke as it would be pretty easy to figure out who gave it to them)
The part about Pakistan strikes me as weird as well. I can think of almost nothing that would make the world safer than de-nuking Pakistan. I mean we are talking about a country where many parts are lawless, factions of the government sponsor terrorism on a massive scale, and the population is largely hostile to the west. I would be surprised if India used the nuke, it might be used as an unstated threat to contain Pakistan, but probably not more than that. |
I think we agree about Pakistan. I think it's the most dangerous of the bunch, which is why I wrote:
| Quote: |
| ... if Pakistan is not de-nuked ... |
I'm guessing you missed the "not." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Eventually we will have a nuclear war on Earth. Hopefully it will be a relatively limited one.
The US, England, France and the USSR have all been fairly reluctant to use nukes, so there was little chance since the end of WWII for such an exchange.
However, China has never been in that kind of moral category - just too practical to use them.
The subsequent members of the nuclear club are all in possession of modest nuclear arsenals that are intended to be used - each of them would use them if they felt the need, and given the relative weakness of their conventional forces, such a need could easily arise.
So, from Israel to China we have an arc of instability that could easily rise to a limited nuclear war.
(North Korea is a special case with unique factors that should keep it's very limited nuclear capability bottled up.)
If Iran gets nukes, if any other nations in the region get nukes, or if Pakistan is not de-nuked, we will likely see an exchange within the next two decades. |
I think your pretty off on this. You are assuming that those in power in the Middle East aren't rational. They all seem fairly rational, and more importantly mostly concerned with remaining in power. If Iran gets nukes, there is Israel and the United States to stop them from using them. Remember, Iran hasn't attacked any one using conventional forces since the revolution (I know they support lots of other groups, but that isn't the same, and their is no indication that support would extend to a Nuke as it would be pretty easy to figure out who gave it to them)
The part about Pakistan strikes me as weird as well. I can think of almost nothing that would make the world safer than de-nuking Pakistan. I mean we are talking about a country where many parts are lawless, factions of the government sponsor terrorism on a massive scale, and the population is largely hostile to the west. I would be surprised if India used the nuke, it might be used as an unstated threat to contain Pakistan, but probably not more than that. |
I think we agree about Pakistan. I think it's the most dangerous of the bunch, which is why I wrote:
| Quote: |
| ... if Pakistan is not de-nuked ... |
I'm guessing you missed the "not." |
Yeah, that was my bad. I think the not and the de- being close together set up some false double negative in my mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
