Read the following BBC article, then scroll down to read the highest rated reader comments.

India test launches Agni-V long-range missile (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17765653)

India has successfully launched a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile able to carry a nuclear warhead, officials say.

The Agni-V missile was launched from a site off India's east coast and took 20 minutes to hit its target somewhere near Indonesia in the Indian Ocean.

The missile has a range of more than 5,000km (3,100 miles), potentially bringing targets in China within range.

(...)

"Agni-V is to meet our present-day threat perceptions, which are determined by our defence forces and other agencies," DRDO spokesman Ravi Gupta told AFP news agency ahead of the launch.


The question I want to discuss in this thread is as follows: is it even ethical for developed nations to send aid to countries which have active a) nuclear weapons programme, b) ballistic missile programme, c) nuclear submarine programme, d) aircraft carrier programme, etc. running?

Let me quote some of the comments:

A firm declaration by India that they don't need another penny of aid again. Ever.
I am stunned by this. We hand out aid to India when they have a space programme, missile programme, nuclear programme and theres so much starvation in their own country.........They choose to waste the money on this!!!

Then..........we want to do away with free school meals for our own children.
What India does with it's money is their business. When we give them aid however it becomes ours.

We need to stop giving them aid if this is where their priorities lie, just as the Americans do with North Korea.
So let me get this right. We give India financial aid, (remember that 'drop in the ocean' aid), in order to help the millions of poor.

They build a weapon. Not with our money of course. Don't be crazy! With DIFFERENT money, from a different part of the treasury.

Aahh that's ok then!
Why is it the UK sends millions of pounds of aid to India when they are able to test fire long range missiles, send satellites into orbit and develop nuclear weapons? Surely their money is better spent on providing education, housing and clean water to the majority of the population who live in poverty.

As you can see, Westerners (I assume most of them are Brits) are quite understandably baffled by the fact that their governments are providing aid to a country which can afford such huge military build-up programmes. What do you think? Should rich countries help fund Indian military machine, or should they instead divert the aid money into projects that directly and measurably help... I don't know, their own taxpayers?

Discuss.

Aid is given too many countries that have fought wars with their neighbors and so spend money on their military. Should we restrict aid to countries that spend, say less than 1% GDP on their military?
It is good for India to develop high tech industries. Obviously with the development of these industries in India there is less scope for imports from the west. Should we restrict aid to countries that are not developing certain techs?

Not that I disagree with you necessarily, but what would you say is the max poverty level before one can work on expensive military projects?

I think a lot of the people talking about aid in that article already think that the UK sends too much aid abroad full stop, and are using India's military spending as a launch-pad to rant about views they have already formed a long time ago.

India spends less on its military as a % of GDP than all of these countries: Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Chad, Jordan, Georgia, Iraq, United States, Kuwait, Singapore, United Kingdom, Armenia, Angola, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Mauritania, Algeria, Burundi, Djibouti, Colombia, Namibia, Bahrain, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, Chile, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Greece, Swaziland, Brunei, Botswana, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and South Korea. It also happens to be in a rather volatile region of the world, with two particularly unfriendly neighbours.

Moreover, the "logic" that we should stop sending aid to India because its government won't do enough to tackle its crippling poverty is completely backwards. We should send aid to India exactly because its government won't do enough to tackle its crippling poverty.

I'm surprised we still send aid to India, it seems unnecessary. I'd be much more comfortable with the money going directly to charities that operate in India, assuming that this isn't what currently happens.

The military has been a giant money eater in many nations. And in all those, people in need of support may and will suffer for it, "developed" or not developed. In India, this suffering has a special quality because of the hunger of millions. True.
But so what? What is this coming down to? That you are only allowed to pursue Geo-political interests with military means (be it directly or indirectly, be it in action or by bluffing) until you can feed your people? In itself not a bad idea, but in the context of world politics this IMO oozes from ignorance and arrogance. Because the nations that already can feed their people won't stop to play the game and will exploit a stance where another nation that can't rolls over and is quiet. Including those sending aid.

So much to the general gist of the OP. As to the explicit measure - the rocket - what do I know how justified that is? Those top rated commentators surely do not either.
And finally:
Would India actually spend less on Defense without the aid money? Would those in hunger not lose? Questions that are in dire need for an answer.

Not that I disagree with you necessarily, but what would you say is the max poverty level before one can work on expensive military projects?

That's hard to say. Some level of defence spending is of course necessary for any country larger than a city, but it seems obscene to be building up power projection capabilities as well as funding many prestige projects while people are nearly starving.

If the Indians (or others for that matter) think that building aircraft carriers and ICBMs (how do these help defend against Pakistan, exactly?) is more important than providing education, healthcare, sanitation and basic infrastructure to poorer regions, I am fine with that - but their folly shouldn't be supported by a single euro, dollar or pound coming from the developed world. Especially not when the contributing nations are facing huge budget deficits and have problems providing services to their own taxpayers.

If the governments of rich nations disagree, they should at least come clean and admit that they're funding India for strategic reasons (buffing it up as a counterweight against China).

I think a lot of the people talking about aid in that article already think that the UK sends too much aid abroad full stop, and are using India's military spending as a launch-pad to rant about views they have already formed a long time ago.

Doesn't mean the basic argument isn't sound.

India spends less on its military as a % of GDP than all of these countries: Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Chad, Jordan, Georgia, Iraq, United States, Kuwait, Singapore, United Kingdom, Armenia, Angola, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Mauritania, Algeria, Burundi, Djibouti, Colombia, Namibia, Bahrain, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, Chile, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Greece, Swaziland, Brunei, Botswana, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and South Korea. It also happens to be in a rather volatile region of the world, with two particularly unfriendly neighbours.

Which is our responsibility... how? And when we're at it, Greece has been criticized for the exact same thing - why should Germany and other EU countries bail them out, when they're wasting so much money on military hardware they don't even need?

At least when the US sponsors the IDF, it admits it is doing it for strategic reasons, not as "humanitarian" aid to Israeli people.

Moreover, the "logic" that we should stop sending aid to India because its government won't do enough to tackle its crippling poverty is completely backwards. We should send aid to India exactly because its government won't do enough to tackle its crippling poverty.

Completely backwards? It seems rather that you don't get it - it is the responsibility of the government of India to take care of its people. If it doesn't want to, why should any other nation care? India is a democracy, so you can't even claim that the people have no say in what's happening. By providing aid to India, countries like Britain are de facto allowing its government to free money for military/prestige projects. It's like giving money to an addict.

I'm surprised we still send aid to India, it seems unnecessary. I'd be much more comfortable with the money going directly to charities that operate in India, assuming that this isn't what currently happens.

That seems as a good idea, but it still frees the government of India from its responsibilities. Unless there is a larger commitment to fight poverty (and overpopulation), India shouldn't receive any help whatsoever. This goes to other countries that behave like this. Just my opinion.

It seems rather that you don't get it
You ask me what I think, then you tell me that I don't understand what you think. If you don't want me to tell you what I think, why ask for anyone else's opinion?

It doesn't matter what I say, what the arguments are, what the financials are, or what the consequences are, because you don't believe that the West should be giving foreign aid at all. The underlying arguments are irrelevant to you - whether it's a prestige military project, a fancy car for the President, or a new 4G mobile network, it won't matter to you, because foreign aid is Bad. It's not our responsibility to feed Indians, it's the Indian government's, so any money we give is money that frees the Indians to waste on crap they don't need. There is no reconciling your argument with mine, so why do you even ask these questions?

They're just doing what the USA did (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/).
In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals.If the States can pour massive amounts of money into expanding it's nuclear arsenal whilst more than a fifth of it's population were living in poverty, why moan when India does the same? I bet India pumps less of it's GDp into armament than the USA did in the 50s', if anything they are more responsible with their money than the USA was.

They're just doing what the USA did (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/).
If the States can pour massive amounts of money into expanding it's nuclear arsenal whilst more than a fifth of it's population were living in poverty, why moan when India does the same? I bet India pumps less of it's GDp into armament than the USA did in the 50s', if anything they are more responsible with their money than the USA was.

Because India is at two-fifths. :rolleyes:

So what? Are you saying that paying for a nuclear deterrant is acceptable for a country with less than 30% of it's population in poverty? Some other figure? Why accept any figure? If you are making an argument on some kind of humanitarian grounds then why find it acceptable for the USA to have such a large defense budget today, when people are living in tent cities and poverty is back up to over 15%?

You cannot say 'it is unacceptable to be shovelling money into nuclear weapons while a large chunk of your populace is in poverty' when your country did and does the same. When this is pointed out to you the goalposts start moving. Your position is inherently hypocritical.

FYI, according to wiki, India is also doing very well combating poverty itself:
According to a new UN Millennium Development Goals Report, as many as 320 million people in India and China are expected to come out of extreme poverty in the next four years, while India's poverty rate is projected to drop to 22% in 2015.That's very close to eroding your point entirely in three years time.

Obviously, there is no line that you can draw between "acceptable to have a nuclear deterrent" and "not," it's a fuzzy question at best. I was being snarcastic.

Splendid :)

So what? Are you saying that paying for a nuclear deterrant is acceptable for a country with less than 30% of it's population in poverty? Some other figure? Why accept any figure? If you are making an argument on some kind of humanitarian grounds then why find it acceptable for the USA to have such a large defense budget today, when people are living in tent cities and poverty is back up to over 15%?
The difference is that USA in this case is using its own money to pay for it.
India is using, indirectly, aid money from western countries; money that was originally donated to help people and not for ICBMs.
Isn't it a big difference?

India is using, indirectly, aid money from western countries
I don't think you can say that until you answer SiLL's final question. It's certainly not obvious to me that India would suddenly stop building nuclear weapons if the UK cut off aid.

If Pakistan had nuclear weapons and India didn't (and I know India provoked the nuclear arms race), then I'd be scared that within a few decades there wouldn't just be a lot of poor people in India, there'd be a lot of dead and irradiated people in India.

India is a big democracy in a tough neighbourhood and needs to look after herself.

It's also worth pointing out that the UK started its nuclear weapons programme when India was British territory, and far poorer than it is today. Brits endured a significantly lower standard of living to pay for those bombs in the late 1940s. Pots and kettles.....

India is using, indirectly, aid money from western countries; money that was originally donated to help people and not for ICBMs.
Isn't it a big difference? Unless you can demonstrate that foreign aid money is being specifically added to India's defence budget this is just a convenient assumption to make on your part - and one with no factual basis.

If India's defence budget is $10Bn and their domestic infrastructure/economic budget is $100Bn and we give them $2Bn to add to the latter, you cannot suddenly claim that we are paying for their nuclear weapons.

So what? Are you saying that paying for a nuclear deterrant is acceptable for a country with less than 30% of it's population in poverty?

That's a nice way of missing the point entirely.

I am not saying what the Indians should or should not do. I am concerned about the fact that Western governments pay for it, and that this aid is being paraded as "development" or "humanitarian" aid.

Your position is inherently hypocritical.

Do me a favour - next time please make more effort to learn what my position *is* before you accuse me of being hypocritical. Deal?

FYI, according to wiki, India is also doing very well combating poverty itself:
That's very close to eroding your point entirely in three years time.

a) even if it succeeded in that (yeah, right), there would still be hundreds of millions of people whose living standard would be... well, non-existent by the standards of any reasonably developed country. I'd say helping them is more important then building a new aircraft carrier as a part of an ongoing peeing contest with China. (This goes to the US as well, BTW, but for different reasons.)

b) the percentage isn't important. The point is that it is not, in my view, moral to divert our taxpayers money to help fund military build-up in Asia, especially when we - the West - are already neck deep in debt. It is in line with my general attitude towards aid for poorer countries - it has to be extremely conditional. In this case, if India can afford all these military toys, it clearly doesn't need any aid from outside.

Unless you can demonstrate that foreign aid money is being specifically added to India's defence budget this is just a convenient assumption to make on your part - and one with no factual basis.

If India's defence budget is $10Bn and their domestic infrastructure/economic budget is $100Bn and we give them $2Bn to add to the latter, you cannot suddenly claim that we are paying for their nuclear weapons.

Yes, you can.

If the UK gives a given amount of money, and the development of a new weapon system in India costs about the same, then you can very well claim that indirectly, the UK taxpayers just paid for a new missile or submarine in India. The money had to come from somewhere - in the absence of this aid, the Indian government would have to cut something else. It didn't have to due to the aid it received.

Let's say I am a gambler and I can't afford a car. You give me money - I buy a new car and continue gambling. Without your money, I wouldn't have the car - in fact I might even try to stop losing all my money in slot machines. Your money helped me to continue in my self-destructive behaviour. Thank you.

You still have no evidence that you are funding India's military build up. The fact that they are spending part of their budget on it is no indication that 'we' are paying for it.
military toysI had no idea that ensuring that you can defend yourself from potentially aggressive, nuclear armed neighbours was just a game, thanks for informing me of this fact.

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

Correct. You defend yourself with the threat of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. As with buying them while some of your population are living in poverty, that's the way we did it.

If India does not provide for its own defence who will.

From Wiki Sino-Indian War 1962

During the conflict, Nehru wrote two desperate letters to JFK, requesting 12 squadrons of fighter jets. These jets were necessary to beef up Indian air strength so that an air war could be initiated safely from the Indian perspective. This request was rejected. According to former Indian diplomat G Parthasarathy, "only after we got nothing from the US did arms supplies from the Soviet Union to India commence." [58] In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas.[59]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

Correct. You defend yourself with the threat of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. As with buying them while some of your population are living in poverty, that's the way we did it.

...but their rivals are right next door. Not like they need an ICBM to hit Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

...but their rivals are right next door. Not like they need an ICBM to hit Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

I'm guessing those ICBMs are actually aimed at Beijing and Shanghai...

It's apparently exactly what they need to hit Beijing, their biggest, scariest neighbour.

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.
That approach is too limited. Unless you want to deny India to play the global political game, that is where you have to look at. Not just Pakistan. And look, I am not saying that I applaud it if money is used for nukes which could be used to feed people. It's a freaking tragedy and travesty. But we aren't really discussing that. This is an issue of which the roots go deep, in depths way beyond the topic of development aid for India. Which is what we really discuss, or rather, how those nukes relate to development aid, what weight development aid has on this respectively.

Yes, you can.

If the UK gives a given amount of money, and the development of a new weapon system in India costs about the same, then you can very well claim that indirectly, the UK taxpayers just paid for a new missile or submarine in India. The money had to come from somewhere - in the absence of this aid, the Indian government would have to cut something else. It didn't have to due to the aid it received.

So what if India had cut some other budget than Defense? I see your line of argumentation fall down like the house of cards it is.

Completely backwards? It seems rather that you don't get it - it is the responsibility of the government of India to take care of its people. If it doesn't want to, why should any other nation care? India is a democracy, so you can't even claim that the people have no say in what's happening. By providing aid to India, countries like Britain are de facto allowing its government to free money for military/prestige projects. It's like giving money to an addict.


You should care because your moral obligations are not defeated by national borders. The mere fact that Indians are not citizens of your nation makes no difference in your moral obligations towards them. You have obligations towards them because of their status as rational, autonomous beings with the capacity to think and feel. It is not common citizenship, but common humanity, which determines your moral obligations. Moreover your moral obligations are also not defeated by the shortcomings of others. It is no defense of your shortcomings to point at another -India's government- and claim they also have moral shortcomings.

It costs us (Westerners, including western governments) next to nothing to save lives in countries like India. That is to say, the marginal reduction in your income is negligible compared to the great benefit thereby engendered (a life, saved!). It is the case the we are morally obligated to suffer negligible losses if the gains to others are inestimable (and how else would we describe the situation in which for the cost of a coffee I can save a life?). Hence, if you care about your moral obligations at all, you should care about the well-being of Indians.

But I suppose you do not agree. I suppose you think that national borders just might defeat your moral obligations, or that the shortcomings of others might do so. I doubt you can come up with a cohesive moral theory to explain why this would be so, but I shall not request one of you. These suppositions are absurd, and one can show that by example.

I shall assume that you do agree with the following moral judgement: if a child is drowning in a swimming pool you should jump in and save the child's life. You are obligated to. Note that this might actually come at not inconsiderable personal expense (you might ruin your new £200 suit). Nonetheless, compared to a life this expense is trivial. Your obligation holds.

Could it be that national borders could defeat this obligation? Let's see. Suppose that you are ten metres away from the swimming pool in which the child is drowning. In between you and the child, there is in fact an (open) national border. You know the child is a foreign citizen. Does that free you from your obligation to save the child's life? Surely not. In fact, it seems to matter not one iota to your obligation in this situation; you are morally obligated to jump into the swimming pool, suit be damned. If you did not, and tried to justify your reticence by saying that the child was a foreign citizen, you would be rightly scorned (imagine saying this to the child's parents: "Yes, usually I would save the life of a drowning child, but you see your daughter just didn't share citizenship with me. Indeed, she was on the wrong side of the national border, as it happens. I didn't feel I had any particular reason or obligation to help her at all, especially given I might ruin my nice new suit").

So it can't be that national borders or different citizenship defeat your moral obligations here. Could it be the shortcomings of others? Suppose that next to the swimming pool in which the child is drowning stands a man. He is quite aware that the child is drowning (you can tell) but is too busy with other things to save that child's life. Perhaps he is talking on his phone. Perhaps he is building an elaborate model ballistic missile to show off to his neighbours. Either way, does ths defeat your obligation to save the child? Again, surely not. You could not possibly defend your omission to act by saying: "Well, normally I'll accept that I should save drowning children, but this time there was someone else who could have done it as well. Maybe even easier. I know they didn't do it, and I could tell they weren't going to do it, but nonetheless I felt that their ommission freed me from any moral obligation. It kind of like, two wrong make a right, you know?". This defence would be unacceptable; other people's shortcomings do not justify your own.

It should not be hard to transfer this reasoning to the India case over which you are so incensed. Indians are foreign nationals separated from you by a national border (many, in fact). But as we have seen, this does not defeat your obligations to them. It is the responsibility of the Indian government to help Indians, and they have often failed to do so. But as we have seen, this does not defeat your obligation to them ('other people's shortcomings...'). I have assumed you accepted the judgement I state above. I shall further assume that this judgement holds because "we are morally obligated to suffer negligible losses if the gains to others are inestimable". In fact, in the cases discussed above your cost may be far greater than in cases concerning charitable giving: a life can be saved for a lot less than £200. So we can state clearly why you should care: You should care because you should care about your moral obligations.

I suspect Lovett may have brought this topic to an end by such a well-reasoned argument that gets to the root of the matter.

So it can't be that national borders or different citizenship defeat your moral obligations here. Could it be the shortcomings of others? Suppose that next to the swimming pool in which the child is drowning stands a man. He is quite aware that the child is drowning (you can tell) but is too busy with other things to save that child's life. Perhaps he is talking on his phone. Perhaps he is building an elaborate model ballistic missile to show off to his neighbours. Either way, does ths defeat your obligation to save the child? Again, surely not. You could not possibly defend your omission to act by saying: "Well, normally I'll accept that I should save drowning children, but this time there was someone else who could have done it as well. Maybe even easier. I know they didn't do it, and I could tell they weren't going to do it, but nonetheless I felt that their omission freed me from any moral obligation. It kind of like, two wrong make a right, you know?". This defense would be unacceptable; other people's shortcomings do not justify your own.
You comparison is quite accurate: The swimming pool is India, the children represents the Indian citizens, the man ignoring the problem while building ICBMs is the Indian government.
However the caveat here is that the Indian government is also the guardian of the swimming pool: By being distracted, he fails is duty and should be at least fired for negligence.
Withdrawing aid is the equivalent of firing the negligent guardian: funds will be reestablished once a better guardian is hired.


There is also another practical problem with your reasoning: you are comparing one-off intervention (e.g. saving a drawing child) with a long term ongoing activity (giving regular aid).

I would push the concept more: where does it stops your responsibility?
You know the government fail their citizens with wasted resources, corruption, etc, and as a consequence people die in misery (look at Africa).
If you believe you have a moral obligation to help, why limit yourself to sending aid that have little effect in the long term?
Why not taking over the guardianship?

In short: where do you draw the line about helping other countries?

I had no idea that ensuring that you can defend yourself from potentially aggressive, nuclear armed neighbours was just a game, thanks for informing me of this fact.

Are you doing this deliberately, or are you really so ignorant about military/defence matters?

ICBMs aren't the only thing India is actively developing. As I mentioned in this very thread, it also has an aircraft carrier programme (a part of India's robust naval build-up), nuclear submarine programme, and all kinds of other programmes which I call "military toys" because they're not necessary. The main threat India faces is Pakistan and islamic terrorism. You don't fight either with aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, or ICBMs.

What India is doing now is building up power projection capabilities, in other words it wants to develop means to intervene militarily abroad. I fail to say why should this be in any way, directly or indirectly, be supported by Western taxpayers' money. Period.

You don't defend yourself with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

India is clearly pursuing prestige projects simply because it doesn't want to be seen trailing in China's shadow.

So what if India had cut some other budget than Defense? I see your line of argumentation fall down like the house of cards it is.

No, you're just not following it. If India had to cut something else, then it's government would have to justify it. If it receives bonus money from abroad, it doesn't have to - it is free to pursue its prestige hobby projects without having to cut something the voters would miss.

In other words, the West is enabling the kind of behaviour that is potentially self-destructive. It is assuming responsibility for things it should leave to the Indians to deal with on their own.

You should care because your moral obligations are not defeated by national borders. The mere fact that Indians are not citizens of your nation makes no difference in your moral obligations towards them. You have obligations towards them because of their status as rational, autonomous beings with the capacity to think and feel. It is not common citizenship, but common humanity, which determines your moral obligations. Moreover your moral obligations are also not defeated by the shortcomings of others. It is no defense of your shortcomings to point at another -India's government- and claim they also have moral shortcomings.

I had to stop reading right there. I am talking real world issues here, not some sort of international humanist utopia you are interested in. In other words, your view is so incompatible with mine that it makes no sense to even argue about it.

What India is doing now is building up power projection capabilities, in other words it wants to develop means to intervene militarily abroad. I fail to say why should this be in any way, directly or indirectly, be supported by Western taxpayers' money. Period.Look, I see your point, but I happen not to agree with it, I think India has the same right any other state has to develop the military capabilities it feels it needs to be secure, anything else would be the most appalling hypocrisy from a Brit.

But your fundamental failure of logic is to assume that it is their military budget that we are propping up. If we stopped giving them aid, I am damn sure it isn't any of their 'prestige' projects that would be cut.

If India does not provide for its own defence who will.

From Wiki Sino-Indian War 1962

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Supporting democracies? Leave that to the Soviets. We have a ton of puppet dictatorships in Central America to prop up, thankyouverymuch.

No you're just not following it. If India had to cut something else, then it's government would have to justify it. If it receives bonus money from abroad, it doesn't have to - it is free to pursue its prestige hobby projects without having to cut something the voters would miss.

I asked: Would India actually cut defense? You answer this with fleshing out your hypothesis, but without actually reasoning why we should assume this hypothesis to be correct.
What exactly makes you think that India could not justify it defense budget without the aid, or that it would even have considerable trouble to do so without the aid? Simply because it would have to cut something else? Think, you can not possibly believe this to be sufficient ground. It just bloats your hypothesis.

Winner, the discussion you seem to want is ‘If we ignore the considerations of morality, then is there any reason for us to care about poor Indians?’ And if that were the discussion we should have, the case would be open and shut. There seems little self-interested reason to care about poor Indians, and if we shutter off moral reasons that means there is no reason at all. We shouldn’t care about poor Indians.

But to use this methodology in a discussion is absurd. It ignores the central, pivotal reason the plight of the poor is raised: moral considerations. It is akin to asking ‘If we ignore the fact that allowing genocide is wrong, do we have a reason to intervene in Darfur?’ or ‘if we ignore the theory of relativity, will a clock travelling near the speed of light go as fast as the one on my desk?’. In both cases we come perfectly valid conclusions: in the first we conclude that we have no reason to stop genocide, and in the second we conclude that the two clocks will tell the same time after an hour (in either reference frame). But in both cases these conclusions are useless; we have stipulated that one should ignore the central reason for the issue being raised. Once we acknowledge this reason, we can see that we do have a reason to intervene in Darfur and that the clocks in question won’t tell the same time after an hour.

You want to proceed by shuttering off the entire content of discussion: moral considerations. You want to proceed as if the entire reason the question ‘Should we care about poor Indians’ is relevant –those considerations- should not be mentioned. As seen, this approach will yield useless, empty conclusions. In reality moral considerations are not shuttered off; they should be heeded. And thus, in this discussion it is absurd to stipulate that they should be ignored. If you really want to discuss real world issues, take the most important factors into account.

Well lovett, I am not sure you took into account that there can be good reasons to make use of aid which are not of a moral nature, but operate on the basis of rational self-interest. Removing the moral component will yield this and in deed seems to be the core of international politics or at least a crucial feature. As Winner speculated with regards to aid to India: It could be argued to be a way to "bribe" it. Nations have often and repeatedly used financial aids to other nations as a tool of bound ship and/or of pressure by threatening to withhold it. It's like accepting gifts from a mafia boss.

Well lovett, I am not sure you took into account that there can be good reasons to make use of aid which are not of a moral nature, but operate on the basis of rational self-interest. Removing the moral component will yield this and in deed seems to be the core of international politics or at least a crucial feature. As Winner speculated with regards to aid to India: It could be argued to be a way to "bribe" it. Nations have often and repeatedly used financial aids to other nations as a tool of bound ship and/or of pressure by threatening to withhold it. It's like accepting gifts from a mafia boss.
Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why? If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

Essentially, by eliminating the moral component of the argument, he makes his conclusion, that we should never give any aid at all, trivial. But therein lies the contradiction - why bring up India's 40% poverty rate, if we have been forbidden by Winner from considering moral obligations at all? Winner's framework for analysis forbids us from giving a damn about suffering in other countries, so who cares how many Indians are living in poverty? We should be completely indifferent between giving aid to a country with a 40% poverty and giving aid to a country with a 20% poverty rate.

As you can see, Westerners (I assume most of them are Brits) are quite understandably baffled by the fact that their governments are providing aid to a country which can afford such huge military build-up programmes. What do you think? Should rich countries help fund Indian military machine, or should they instead divert the aid money into projects that directly and measurably help... I don't know, their own taxpayers?

Discuss.

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

I think you forgot "actively oppressing"

Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why? If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

That's a good question.

Look, I see your point, but I happen not to agree with it, I think India has the same right any other state has to develop the military capabilities it feels it needs to be secure, anything else would be the most appalling hypocrisy from a Brit.

Well, you clearly don't see my point. It isn't about the right of India to arm itself to the teeth, it is about whether Western taxpayers should support it. My answer to that is no.

But your fundamental failure of logic is to assume that it is their military budget that we are propping up. If we stopped giving them aid, I am damn sure it isn't any of their 'prestige' projects that would be cut.

Budget is just a huge pot of gold. We're adding coin into it, ergo we're indirectly (will you finally notice the word?) supporting everything the country does, good and bad. If India feels it is rich enough to afford ICBMs, a space programme, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines, then it clearly doesn't require aid from anyone.

Yeah but Winner is saying that aid should be tied to how many poor people India has. I.e. if India didn't spend money on nuclear weapons, but instead spent it on reducing poverty, then India would be more deserving of aid. But why?

Because then we would at least know that India is doing all it can to help itself and thus the aid we provide isn't actually squandered on military toys.

If we have no moral obligations to India, then what does it matter whether India spends money on reducing poverty, or on nuclear weapons? If we are completely indifferent to India's suffering, then why tie aid to specific actions of the Indian government that would reduce that suffering?

We are not indifferent, I never said we were or should be. I simply refuse lovett's utopistic view of "moral obligations" toward the whole world/humanity in general.

Essentially, I am willing to help countries that are fully committed to helping themselves, provided that the amount of aid sent isn't too much of a strain on the helping country's budget and that the receiving country actually follows the advice it has been given.

Example one:
Buranda, a TPLAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_places_in_Yes_Minister) (tin-pot little African country) asks for EU aid. It implements all measures that it is asked to implement, keeps minimum defence force and actively combats corruption. The money is used to develop infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other things that promote economic development and thus combat poverty and overpopulation. The country also listens to the EU and takes steps to protects its environment.

-> In this case, I support it. It not only helps the people in this country, creates goodwill and increases prestige of the EU in the region, not to mention the good example it sets to other countries, but it also benefits the benefactor country in terms of future economic opportunities.

Example two:
Bananistan, a HRRC (human resource rich country, meaning it's grossly over-populated and begging for money) asks for EU aid. The government is locked in conflict with its neighbours Coffeestan and Diamondistan and spends a large fraction of its budget buying weapons from anybody who's willing to sell. The government refuses to stop, citing "security needs". It wants money, but refuses to implement any of the development goals the EU is asking for. Corruption in the government means aid money is often redirected into the pockets of officials, and even the money that actually helps people only frees more government money for the military.

-> In this case, forget about it. Not only will this be a colossal waste of money, time and effort, but it will also promote exactly the kind of behaviour we want to get rid of. Helping this country will release its government from its responsibility, which will only teach it to be more irresponsible in the future. End result: a disaster.

India is not in either of these extremes, but it is a big country which can take care of its own, without us indirectly funding their military.

Essentially, by eliminating the moral component of the argument, he makes his conclusion, that we should never give any aid at all, trivial. But therein lies the contradiction - why bring up India's 40% poverty rate, if we have been forbidden by Winner from considering moral obligations at all? Winner's framework for analysis forbids us from giving a damn about suffering in other countries, so who cares how many Indians are living in poverty?

He's right there, why don't you ask?

It's a simple matter of utility vs. cost - how much value can you get for a given amount of aid. I believe India's prestige projects prove the country has progressed enough to stand on its own legs. It is impractical as well as immoral to support it now, when the money could be used far better either at home, or in some more deserving country.

You're okay with funding Israel, which does the same thing, despite having millions of horribly impoverished people under its rule whom it refuses to help.

I mentioned that case in this very thread. Why don't you find the part and read it?

I have six observations:

(i) The UK has both a massive foreign exchange deficit and a state finance deficit; so, as a country, it really does not have any money to give to other countries; and the Chinese and others have not given us their permission to lend on their money.

(ii) If individuals want to contribute to overseas aid; I (I do) would let them but let us be blunt; those advocating substantive UK state aid to India and suchlike, and indeed those (in the press) arguing for higher rate tax concessions for private aid are, whether they realise it or not, increasing the debt burden for my children.

(iii) There is no reason why a country such as the UK that has in recent historic times very much alleviated its own poverty i.e. 1948 to 2047 primarily by exercising restraint over its domestic population growth, should be obliged to help others who choose not to so stabilise their own domestic population.

(iv) More generally I believe that UK state aid is about paying bribes for votes for the Olympics, not opposing western adventurism in Afghanistan and elsewhere and providing consultants to advocate privatisation of resources to benefit western corporate elites. I.e. most of it is fraudulently spent.

(v) And reverting to India, the UK government is, I understand, ending aid to India; because the wealthy indian elite feels insulted by a UK government pressing for substantive inward investment by Indian companies in the UK while merely offering paltry amounts of foreign aid with various strings attached.

(vi) I agree with Winner; the UK gave up developing ICBMs after the "Blue Streak" program because it could not afford them, and there is no reason why we should subsidise Indian ambitions.

Budget is just a huge pot of gold. We're adding coin into it, ergo we're indirectly (will you finally notice the word?) supporting everything the country does, good and bad.Rubbish,

Winner, it's not a question of whether or not I notice words. I fully understand your argument, it's just not true.

Imagine if we follow your sage advice, I would bet sound money that India would still be pursuing a space program, a nuclear deterrance program, an aircraft carrier program and their attempt to build a native 5th gen fighter. Ergo, this aid money is not supporting these projects, directly or indirectly - India has decided it wants to pursue these projects and has budgeted internally so it can support them. We are then adding a relatively small amount and earmarking it to tackle certain economic factors. They are categorically not using our money to pay for nukes whichever way you look at it.

India spends less than the global average on its defence budget - 2.3% of GDP against a 2.6% average, and as I have linked before, it is reportedly making massive inroads against poverty. long may this situation continue, and if we can help, we should.

(iii) There is no reason why a country such as the UK that has in recent historic times very much alleviated its own poverty i.e. 1948 to 2047 primarily by exercising restraint over its domestic population growth, should be obliged to help others who choose not to so stabilise their own domestic population.Utter garbage. The slowing of population growth was due to our own wealth, not any sort of deliberate policy of population control.

Well India did refuse Britain aid before the British begged them to continue the aid .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9061844/India-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html


Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.
We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session.
“It is a peanut in our total development exercises expenditure.” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up.

But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause “grave political embarrassment” to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.



India is a net donor country . It gives more foreign aid than it takes .

Rubbish,

Winner, it's not a question of whether or not I notice words. I fully understand your argument, it's just not true.

You clearly don't, that's what's so frustrating about this.

Imagine if we follow your sage advice, I would bet sound money that India would still be pursuing a space program, a nuclear deterrance program, an aircraft carrier program and their attempt to build a native 5th gen fighter. Ergo, this aid money is not supporting these projects, directly or indirectly - India has decided it wants to pursue these projects and has budgeted internally so it can support them. We are then adding a relatively small amount and earmarking it to tackle certain economic factors. They are categorically not using our money to pay for nukes whichever way you look at it.

The fact that they can afford all this (at the expense of some other things they'd have to cut in the absence of international - not just British! - aid) simply does not invalidate my argument.

India spends less than the global average on its defence budget - 2.3% of GDP against a 2.6% average, and as I have linked before, it is reportedly making massive inroads against poverty. long may this situation continue, and if we can help, we should.

No, we shouldn't. And apparently the Indians aren't even that grateful, so there's another reason to stop sending money right now - especially in this economic environment.

Well India did refuse Britain aid before the Britain's begged them to continue the aid

Thank you for your update!


I have the suspicion that the embarrassment would be because the
UK government has already promised the US government that it will
support them in various countries in lobbying for opening them up for
various business opportunities by providing consutants via aid budget etc.

Thank you for your update!


I have the suspicion that the embarrassment would be because the
UK government has already promised the US government that it will
support them in various countries in lobbying for opening them up for
various business opportunities by providing consutants via aid budget etc.

Well from what I have read , heard it was so that India would choose British based Eurofighter jet when it bid for supplying 126 jets . But India did finally choose a french aircraft Dassualt .It was supposedly worth 20billion dollars.

I am trying to find sources for net foreign aid given by India and received by India .Among the sources was your favorite daily mail :P

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068930/How-India-squanders-British-aid--1-4bn-country-space-programme.html
Such is the economic power of India that it now gives out more foreign aid than it receives, and has handed over £3.5 billion to cement relations with impoverished Africa.


and a blog which is a copy of an article printed in Nytimes
http://open.salon.com/blog/ranjani_iyer_mohanty/2012/03/12/the_fanciful_world_of_foreign_aid


Foreign aid is no longer a transaction of rich countries giving to the poor. The categories of donor and recipient have blurred. A donor one moment may be a recipient the next. Like Brazil, Russia, and China, India both receives and gives aid. For example, India gives aid to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan. In fact, India is in the process of setting up its own aid agency (the Indian Agency for Partnership in Development) to oversee a spending of over $11 billion over the next 5-7 years.


So it is not like Western aid is funding Indian military pet projects. Indian missle developement programme is several times cheaper compared to other countries similar programmes . The missile program makes a lot of money as India does satellite launches for other countries .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation

"This year India has launched 11 satellites, including nine from other countries—and it became the first nation to launch 10 satellites on one rocket."[9] Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has successfully operationalised two major satellite systems namely Indian National Satellites (INSAT) for communication services and Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites for management of natural resources

I have six observations:

(i) The UK has both a massive foreign exchange deficit and a state finance deficit; so, as a country, it really does not have any money to give to other countries; and the Chinese and others have not given us their permission to lend on their money.

(ii) If individuals want to contribute to overseas aid; I (I do) would let them but let us be blunt; those advocating substantive UK state aid to India and suchlike, and indeed those (in the press) arguing for higher rate tax concessions for private aid are, whether they realise it or not, increasing the debt burden for my children.

(iii) There is no reason why a country such as the UK that has in recent historic times very much alleviated its own poverty i.e. 1948 to 2047 primarily by exercising restraint over its domestic population growth, should be obliged to help others who choose not to so stabilise their own domestic population.

(iv) More generally I believe that UK state aid is about paying bribes for votes for the Olympics, not opposing western adventurism in Afghanistan and elsewhere and providing consultants to advocate privatisation of resources to benefit western corporate elites. I.e. most of it is fraudulently spent.

(v) And reverting to India, the UK government is, I understand, ending aid to India; because the wealthy indian elite feels insulted by a UK government pressing for substantive inward investment by Indian companies in the UK while merely offering paltry amounts of foreign aid with various strings attached.

(vi) I agree with Winner; the UK gave up developing ICBMs after the "Blue Streak" program because it could not afford them, and there is no reason why we should subsidise Indian ambitions.

i) ehh what? The Chinese bought government bonds, they will cash them when they expire, it isn't a loan

ii) okay

iii) India's TFR has dropped by 2 (!!!) in the last 50 years

iv) G4Y?

v) India doesn't want perfidious Albion's filthy money anyway.

vi) Did you have a huge totalitarian regime as a next door neighbour?

Thank you all for your comments.

I will not argue them one by one, but clarify my perspective.

i) ehh what? The Chinese bought government bonds, they will cash them when they expire, it isn't a loan

My concern is not just about the debt to date, but about the further debt that will inevitably accumulate as the UK government does not even recognise the foreign trade deficit as a real problem (it is very foolishly focussed on the domestic deficit).

In this sense the UK is different from the USA, for the USA can always threaten to default if excessive demands are placed upon it. The UK does not have the resources of a continent it occupies to draw upon and cannot similarly credibly threaten to default and expect to drive and eat adequately. Furthermore the game of creating money by quantitative easing only works internationally if other countries have confidence in your currency. If they lose confidence; they will only lend in their own or other trusted currencies; and it is not practical to deflate the debts. In this sense the UK is way behind the USA in that sterling lost its status as a world currency yonks ago.

During the Suez crisis, the US president threatened to instruct the US treasury to sell pounds on the market, and the UK had no defence and so withdrew from Suez.

A point I am trying to make is that it is delusional for us in the UK to dream of power projection by means of aircraft carriers, if the economy is beholden to, not necesarily overtly friendly, foreign creditors.

I have the suspicion that the embarrassment would be because the
UK government has already promised the US government that it will
support them in various countries in lobbying for opening them up for
various business opportunities by providing consutants via aid budget etc.
Also because programs like this are provided as much for the "soft empire" crowd back in the U.K. as much as India's benefit.

The main reasons they're spending money on such things is real threats such as China and Pakistan. To compare the US has no real threats and spends massive amounts of money simply because it enjoys being the world's policeman and sticking its nose in everyone else's business.

The main reasons they're spending money on such things is real threats such as China and Pakistan.


The problem for me isn't really that India spends money on weapons. I mean who doesn't ? The problem what kinds of weapons they're developing.
Why build ICBMs if their arch-enemy and their potential future rival are both right next-door ?
It helps them a bit against China, not at all against Pakistan and enables them to attack Europe or America. That should really be low priority for india.

Why build ICBMs if their arch-enemy and their potential future rival are both right next-door ?...well we bought Trident, despite the fact that the French are just across the channel...

The problem for me isn't really that India spends money on weapons. I mean who doesn't ? The problem what kinds of weapons they're developing.
Why build ICBMs if their arch-enemy and their potential future rival are both right next-door ?
It helps them a bit against China, not at all against Pakistan and enables them to attack Europe or America. That should really be low priority for india.

This missile brings into range several important Chinese cities and serves as a deterrent. Its target is not the Pakistanis but the Chinese.

We overwhelm the Pakistanis conventionally but their nuclear deterrent stopped us from going to war after the Parliament attacks/ Mumbai attacks .

Its the other way round with the Chinese who overwhelm us conventionally . We have several long standing border disputes with them . So we need a credible deterrent versus them , part of which is served by this missile.

The problem for me isn't really that India spends money on weapons. I mean who doesn't ? The problem what kinds of weapons they're developing.
Why build ICBMs if their arch-enemy and their potential future rival are both right next-door ?
It helps them a bit against China, not at all against Pakistan and enables them to attack Europe or America. That should really be low priority for india.

A range of 5,000 km isn't really intercontinental, it brings more Chinese cities in range.

Of all the problems with international aid, this is what people complain about?

You comparison is quite accurate: The swimming pool is India, the children represents the Indian citizens, the man ignoring the problem while building ICBMs is the Indian government.
However the caveat here is that the Indian government is also the guardian of the swimming pool: By being distracted, he fails is duty and should be at least fired for negligence.
Withdrawing aid is the equivalent of firing the negligent guardian: funds will be reestablished once a better guardian is hired.

You mean the equivalent of firing the negligent guardian while letting the child drown?

There is also another practical problem with your reasoning: you are comparing one-off intervention (e.g. saving a drawing child) with a long term ongoing activity (giving regular aid).

That makes no difference to the notion that you have a moral duty to help others who are in desperate need.

I would push the concept more: where does it stops your responsibility?
You know the government fail their citizens with wasted resources, corruption, etc, and as a consequence people die in misery (look at Africa).
If you believe you have a moral obligation to help, why limit yourself to sending aid that have little effect in the long term?
Why not taking over the guardianship?

In short: where do you draw the line about helping other countries?

The problem lies with the nature of international aid, not with the moral obligation to help, which as lovett has pointed out, does not magically disappear because someone else fails to adhere to it or because of the duration required.

If aid is perpetuating or not solving the fundamental problems and sustainable progress is hence not being achieved, then the right course of action would be to rethink how aid is given (and, if you really look at it, taking over 'guardianship' is not likely to be helpful in the long term). It does not mean you're free from the moral obligation to help.

Pakistan has responded.

From BBC

Pakistan has test fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, military officials say, less than a week after India also test-launched a long-range missile.

The military said the test of the Shaheen 1-A, an intermediate-range missile capable of reaching targets in India, was successful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17836625

The Pakistan missile is believed to have a range of less than 1000km . However can't stop the Pakistanis from their India-centric policy. The focus of India's test was certainly not Pakistan.

I agree as noted in post 22

Yes I read your posts and agree with them. These days Pakistan is more preoccupied with its dealing with USA rather than with India. We are slowly getting upstaged by the US as their numnero uno threat . Quite a welcome change.

Pakistan has responded.

From BBC

*facepalm*


This is relevant:

http://www.viruscomix.com/subnormalitybombsagain.jpg

*facepalm*


This is relevant:



Are you saying that the Pakistani test was not a response:confused:

Pic was not directed at Pakistan in particular.

Originally Posted by taillesskangaru
*facepalm*


This is relevant:

Pic was not directed at Pakistan in particular.

I am very confused.

Well I think the point of nukes in the modern world are more hypothetical than anything. I don't think India will nuke anybody first. It's more like, if anyone nuke's india, india can nuke them back.

Well I think the point of nukes in the modern world are more hypothetical than anything. I don't think India will nuke anybody first. It's more like, if anyone nuke's india, india can nuke them back.

Unless of course India believes that Pakistan is about to launch nukes first. Then it becomes palatable to nuke them first to prevent them from nuking us.

:)

India has no first use policy for nukes . While Pakistan doesn't. Pakistan refused to accept a no first use policy due to its conventional inferiority vis a vis India .

India has no first use policy for nukes . While Pakistan doesn't. Pakistan refused to accept a no first use policy due to its conventional inferiority vis a vis India .

Policy shmolicy. In a state of national emergency, if the Indian leadership believed a Pakistani strike was imminent and the only way to prevent it was to nuke Pakistani airbases and command centres first, it would happen.

That's not realistic at all. I can't see a scenario in which Pakistan unilaterally decides it has to nuke India. And in such a case I don't see India's only option being to out-nuke it before .


Edit: Pakistan has second strike capability as well .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

According to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[64]
It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites

That's not realistic at all.

Yes it is. In an escalation scenario, if there is a good reason to believe the other side might launch first, a pre-emptive nuclear strike becomes a possibility. It doesn't matter who does it.

I can't see a scenario in which Pakistan unilaterally decides it has to nuke India. And in such a case I don't see India's only option being to out-nuke it before .

Think harder then. Also, a massive nuclear nuclear strike against Pakistani airbases, nuclear storage sites, launch sites, command&control centres and other relevant military infrastructure would, if executed properly, reduce the risk of a retaliatory strike. Due to the distances involved, the reaction time is very short. This actually increases uncertainty and may lead to panicked decisions by either side.

This comment on the BBC page covers my thoughts:

"It seems naive to think that India can continue to develop as a global economic power without also bringing its defence capabilities up to the standards of other nations in the region. From our POV it seems poverty should be their priority, but the UK, US etc all have poverty and still spend billions on effective defence measures."

Think harder then. Also, a massive nuclear nuclear strike against Pakistani airbases, nuclear storage sites, launch sites, command&control centres and other relevant military infrastructure would, if executed properly, reduce the risk of a retaliatory strike. Due to the distances involved, the reaction time is very short. This actually increases uncertainty and may lead to panicked decisions by either side.

I could think and visualize a game scenario with it. Not going to occur in real world sorry.

Only time there would be a Pakistan nuke scenario is when a so called non-state actor seizes control of some warheads. I don't see how pulverizing Pakistan to ground will help deal with that . You are assuming both countries operating in vacum with no international relations and diplomatic pressures and both governments as well as army being lead by psychopaths .

And even if we go ahead with your gamey scenario , locations of the complete Pakistan arsenal are not known. Some of them are indeed protected and hidden to give it a second strike capability .

I could think and visualize a game scenario with it. Not going to occur in real world sorry.

I am not saying it will happen, just that it could happen. Ergo, I don't give a damn who declares a "no first use" policy, it's essentially an empty statement made in fair weather.

Only time there would be a Pakistan nuke scenario is when a so called non-state actor seizes control of some warheads. I don't see how pulverizing Pakistan to ground will help deal with that . You are assuming both countries operating in vacum with no international relations and diplomatic pressures and both governments as well as army being lead by psychopaths .

I am not assuming anything impossible. You for some reason think than what I am saying is that nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent is likely. I didn't say that. All I *am* saying is that circumstances might force the Indian leadership to resort to a nuclear first strike no matter what their standing policy concerning nuclear weapons is. Period.

And even if we go ahead with your gamey scenario , locations of the complete Pakistan arsenal are not known. Some of them are indeed protected and hidden to give it a second strike capability .

I haven't even presented a scenario. Read what I actually write. As for the Pakistani sites, I am sure the Indian military intelligence has some idea where they might be - after all, that's its job. The Americans are surely observing Pakistan as well, and I think that as the relations with Pakistan worsen, they will be more then willing to share their findings.

So, if India developed the right kind of delivery systems, it should in principle be possible for it to obliterate the Pakistani nuclear capability in a single strike - especially since Pakistan doesn't have ballistic missile submarines - it's nuclear arsenal is fully land based.

All I have to say is, good for YOU, India, you can be considered one of the big boys now. You can nuke China, congrats.

NOW FEED AND HOUSE YOUR PEOPLE PLEASE.

I am not saying it will happen, just that it could happen. Ergo, I don't give a damn who declares a "no first use" policy, it's essentially an empty statement made in fair weather.

A no first use policy is quite significant. It means it is possible to have low intensity conflicts without it escalating into a full fledged nuclear exchange . If atleast 1 country has a no first use policy it stops the leaders from getting enveloped in a "we should nuke them before they nuke us" thinking . As an example you can see the Kargil conflict which occured after both India , Pakistan both were nuclear powers.



I am not assuming anything impossible. You for some reason think than what I am saying is that nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent is likely. I didn't say that. All I *am* saying is that circumstances might force the Indian leadership to resort to a nuclear first strike no matter what their standing policy concerning nuclear weapons is. Period.


I believe a no first use policy will hold good until the country's very existence is under threat. And I don't think any of the nuclear armed country including Israel will ever face such a scenario in this age .



I haven't even presented a scenario. Read what I actually write. As for the Pakistani sites, I am sure the Indian military intelligence has some idea where they might be - after all, that's its job. The Americans are surely observing Pakistan as well, and I think that as the relations with Pakistan worsen, they will be more then willing to share their findings.


So, if India developed the right kind of delivery systems, it should in principle be possible for it to obliterate the Pakistani nuclear capability in a single strike - especially since Pakistan doesn't have ballistic missile submarines - it's nuclear arsenal is fully land based.

If you have read the text I kept in spoilers a few posts back , Pakistan has several secret storage and launch facilities which even the US has no idea where they are located. Some of the locations are buried underground and can withstand a first strike