• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Nuclear India or Nuke Free India?

Do you want a nuclear India?


  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.

Aberforth

The Internationalist
Taking a walk down my block I came across some Greenpeace activists who loaded me with pamphlets and asked me to join it. I came home and read the pamphlets and came across the WMD section where greenpeace is campaigning about India's WMDs aka Nuclear Weapons. They think India should denuclearise itself for the interests of humanity. I find that hard to accept, denuclearisation of India would put it at a severe disadvantage from hostile countries like Pakistan and China, both of which are nuclear powers. I discussed this with a friend of mine and looks likes she is in agreement with the greenpeace propaganda which made me rethink if it really is a problem if India is a nuclear power. To think she is a masters in Political Science from Delhi University. :D

My point nuclear weapons are a cheaper means of defence in the long run then feeding a million strong army and we know it isn't going to be much danger to humanity as no country is likely to use it considering the present world political world situation. What it does it ensure a secure environment for the nation as other nations are unlikely to attack or considering attacking it if the country posesses nuclear weapons. I dislike nukes as a weapon and i think the world would have been better off if it didn't exist in the first place. But I also believe that once it came into existence and possession of countries hostile to us it is in our national interest we also become a nuclear power which India has been ensuring inspite of all sanctions and international pressure after tests in the 1970s.

And Greenpeace conveniently forgot Russian and US proliferation while bashing India and Europe for their nuclearisation. Double standards? :D

Now the point of debate. Do you agree with nuclearisation of India's defence or do you think India would be better off going for conventional defence? Why do you agree and why not?
 
T

thunderbird.117

Guest
praka123 said:
first US and China be nuke-free,then we can think of it:p

and how could you forget pakistan. They are just waiting for the time to nuke India.

They only country i know a nuclear free is Australia.
__________
Aberforth said:
Taking a walk down my block I came across some Greenpeace activists who loaded me with pamphlets and asked me to join it. I came home and read the pamphlets and came across the WMD section where greenpeace is campaigning about India's WMDs aka Nuclear Weapons. They think India should denuclearise itself for the interests of humanity. I find that hard to accept, denuclearisation of India would put it at a severe disadvantage from hostile countries like Pakistan and China, both of which are nuclear powers. I discussed this with a friend of mine and looks likes she is in agreement with the greenpeace propaganda which made me rethink if it really is a problem if India is a nuclear power. To think she is a masters in Political Science from Delhi University. :D

My point nuclear weapons are a cheaper means of defence in the long run then feeding a million strong army and we know it isn't going to be much danger to humanity as no country is likely to use it considering the present world political world situation. What it does it ensure a secure environment for the nation as other nations are unlikely to attack or considering attacking it if the country posesses nuclear weapons. I dislike nukes as a weapon and i think the world would have been better off if it didn't exist in the first place. But I also believe that once it came into existence and possession of countries hostile to us it is in our national interest we also become a nuclear power which India has been ensuring inspite of all sanctions and international pressure after tests in the 1970s.

And Greenpeace conveniently forgot Russian and US proliferation while bashing India and Europe for their nuclearisation. Double standards? :D

Now the point of debate. Do you agree with nuclearisation of India's defence or do you think India would be better off going for conventional defence? Why do you agree and why not?

US calls Greepeace a terrorist. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
Aberforth

Aberforth

The Internationalist
thunderbird.117 said:
US calls Greepeace a terrorist. :)

Everyone knows they aren't so either its misleading comment or sarcasm on part of US. If they really considered them terrorists as lot of Exon Mobil activists would have been in Guatanamo Bay. ;)

thunderbird.117 said:
They only country i know a nuclear free is Australia.

So are the other countries of the world except the nine nuclear powers. If North Korea joins it'll be ten.
 
T

thunderbird.117

Guest
Aberforth said:
Everyone knows they aren't so either its misleading comment or sarcasm on part of US. If they really considered them terrorists as lot of Exon Mobil activists would have been in Guatanamo Bay. ;)



So are the other countries of the world except the nine nuclear powers. If North Korea joins it'll be ten.

The other countries can not afford or they have the nuclear bomb in secret base.
 
OP
Aberforth

Aberforth

The Internationalist
thunderbird.117 said:
The other countries can not afford or they have the nuclear bomb in secret base.

Nuclear bombs aren't that expensive once you get the plans and project in order. In fact the overall cost of developing nuclear weapons is much cheaper than maintaining a armed millitary in an economic and millitary strength terms. But if as you said, they can't afford it in the first place they can't.

Second, you could hide nukes in scret bases or underground but you always need to test them to make sure they are working and the project is successful. Testing them releases a lot of radiations, causes a lot of disturbances which could be picked up by any of the reconaissance satellites. Sooner or later a country with nuclear capabilities or reseach will come to international notice like N Korea and Iran, however you try to hide.

After the testing is done and you have produced extra warheads you can hide them that wouldn't be a problem. In simple way, the world will know you have nukes but won't know where you kept them. It would be difficult to keep the world in belief that you don't have them at all if you actually have them (unless you buy them in black from other countries which practically is possible only in Hollywood movies ;)). Even if you test them in the seas or third countries, there are intelligence methods which can trace it to the country doing the testing.
 

hailgautam

Youngling
Green Peace is a responsible and a good organization I support them on all matters but i have to differ on this matter. Like All who have voted till now i have voted for the Nuclear India. Irrespective of whether we can afford it or not it is a must that we should possess them.

1. It acts as a deterant to our "Goody"-goody neighbors.
2. Helps to develop the technology that can be used for Rocket Science and Civil Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear Power -one must understand is the future of the energy sources.
3. We have show again and again that we are a responsible nation when it comes to Nuclear Power (did I say that - we have blasted a couple though) - ok having said that still we are a responsible lot, so we can have.
 

Sykora

I see right through you.
I don't think _any_ country should have a nuclear arsenal, including India, US, Pakistan and what have you. We've already seen what kind of loss there is to mankind when one of these is used, there can only be chaos if it happens again.

kumarmohit said:
I have no problems with any country having nukes as long as they do not use it for killing people.

For what possible other reason can they be used for? There are much better places to put that extra funding as well as the nuclear fuel. I think the government's prioriies should to keep one of their own alive, rather than nuke a million of the enemy.
 

Simple_Graduate

Broken In
If the choice was between "Nuclear India" or "Nuke Free WORLD", I would choose the latter.

But until that happens I choose a Nuclear India.
 

kumarmohit

Technomancer
Sykora said:
For what possible other reason can they be used for? There are much better places to put that extra funding as well as the nuclear fuel. I think the government's prioriies should to keep one of their own alive, rather than nuke a million of the enemy.

Nukes seem to be a very good deterrent. They can be made and left put. No one would want to use them because of their effect and No one will make their possessor use use them as they know the effects too. (This excludes terrorists who are hell bent on destruction :) )
 

Sykora

I see right through you.
kumarmohit said:
Nukes seem to be a very good deterrent. They can be made and left put. No one would want to use them because of their effect and No one will make their possessor use use them as they know the effects too. (This excludes terrorists who are hell bent on destruction )

True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.

On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.
 
OP
Aberforth

Aberforth

The Internationalist
Sykora said:
True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.

I agree with this part, if the whole world didn't have nuclear weapons it would have been a better place. Nuclear weapon is a defensive power too, no offensive. It has the power of being a deterrant for other countries from attacking a nuclear power. US was close to attacking Russia during cold war tensions but confirmed successful nuclear testings made USS Missouri and other warships turn back. Similar is the case with US and China conflict of interests decades ago.


Sykora said:
On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.

If a nuclear country drop a few nukes on a non-nuclear enemy the whole world is going to look the other way and try to show their displeasures through million dollar meetings and protests. When US used dioxin on Vietnamese which are hazardrous chemicals and cause genetic aberration, where was the world with their morality? Of course they protested but did it change the fact, millions of people were poisoned to death and survivors genetically altered?

If Vietnam was a nuclear power lives of 2 million people and their future generations would have been saved. US would have thought, "Oh no, not nuclear, let us try talks instead". If Pakistan and China drop nukes on India it is unlikely any country will try to stop them or take any action till the whole of India is a large car parking space.
 
T

thunderbird.117

Guest
Aberforth said:
I agree with this part, if the whole world didn't have nuclear weapons it would have been a better place. Nuclear weapon is a defensive power too, no offensive. It has the power of being a deterrant for other countries from attacking a nuclear power. US was close to attacking Russia during cold war tensions but confirmed successful nuclear testings made USS Missouri and other warships turn back. Similar is the case with US and China conflict of interests decades ago.




If a nuclear country drop a few nukes on a non-nuclear enemy the whole world is going to look the other way and try to show their displeasures through million dollar meetings and protests. When US used dioxin on Vietnamese which are hazardrous chemicals and cause genetic aberration, where was the world with their morality? Of course they protested but did it change the fact, millions of people were poisoned to death and survivors genetically altered?

If Vietnam was a nuclear power lives of 2 million people and their future generations would have been saved. US would have thought, "Oh no, not nuclear, let us try talks instead". If Pakistan and China drop nukes on India it is unlikely any country will try to stop them or take any action till the whole of India is a large car parking space.

Why blame of US for it. Blame on world war 2. Did not nazi use Posion gas on Jews people?. And then later coming iran and iraq war. Saddam Hussein miliary use posion gas on iranians and the kurds. Then why blame only US for this things.

War is necessary when this world is filled with hatred,sins and power. War is only options. How many people have been killed and how many people have been born.


More over bangalore itself is a warzone when they are protests. Let us see other place for instance. Gujarat,Kerala and etc and now we have Terrorist Warfare.


When a real war happens India should not sit dumb or blind. They will be scenorio when india is going to attacked by nukes and india got to use when the times comes.

All i say is india is standing dumb when pakistan is freely attacking india in indirected way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom