Menu Bar

Many Updates...World Pundit, Photo Pundit, Video Pundit, Poem Pundit and Health Pundit! (Hover with mouse to stop scrolling)
Free Counters
Free Counters
Floating Vertical Bar With Share Buttons widget by India Pundit
Random Posts:

Indian Web DirectoryIndian PortalIndian ParliamentRajya SabhaIndian Armed ForcesIndian Air ForceIndian NavyIndian Customs & ExciseIndian RailwaysIndian Supreme CourtIndian CourtsIndian Election CommissionIndian NICIndian PIBIndia PostPrasar BharatiIndia IRCTCIndia CBSEIndia ERNET

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Agni-II missile deployment - preparedness or escalation?

Let me first clarify the title. As far as India is concerned, it is the wise move and should aptly be called "preparedness". But there is also a possible "escalation" scenario lurking in the shadows, chiefly because China took the initial step to create this perilous situation.

It is a political fact that most of the Tibetan ecology was systematically eroded in a measured move for stockpiling nuclear arms. Why? To aim them at India, that simple! Being wary of the Chinese might is not misguided obsession, but the intelligent defense strategy. Anyone remember 1962?

I will desist from a political analysis about this news because it will eventually show up in a Rajiv Srinivasan column in Rediff, I hope!

I am personally scared about the consequences of these escalations. It is 2010 and both countries have advanced in nuclear warheads. India not signing the NPT could have aroused China's suspicions. Also, China is probably looking to come to the aid of it's proxy and protege, Pakistan. At this stage, my personal concerns are about the dangers to the Indian civilian population if these actions were to accidentally trigger a war. The last thing India can afford now is a full scale war with its neighbors.

Will sanity prevail on both sides, Can UN mediate an agreement or Is this the beginning of the END OF THE ROAD? Only time, patience and mutual goodwill can tell!


Garg said...

There are only two options for India:

1. Give up nuclear weapons completely. (Will mean losing territory to Pakistan and China to make peace).

2. Deploy nuclear weapons for offensive purposes in adequate numbers. This option does carry the risk of nuclear war.

I do not think there is a third option. Having nuclear weapons but not deploying them makes no sense, as no enemy will believe you. Having too few deployed weapons also makes no sense as enemy can target that in first strike, and you are left with no counter-attack ability.

So you either go the whole distance, or just abandon the idea.

pun-o-rama said...

I entirely agree with your assessment. I am even happy you came forward to offer your insight, because normally people tend to ignore blog posts unless the topic is wantonly provocative or controversial for them to jump in start a row.

This predicament is why statesmen visionaries like Sri. Rajaji (who visited America to talk to Kennedy on Nuclear Disarmament) called for a cessation of arms race, because it was headed nowhere towards international cooperation for mutual constructive development. The recent honest remarks by the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif seems to offer a ray of hope. Let's hope we first get off the dangers caused by the Fukushiama Disaster. Let's keep each other in our daily prayers, if you are a theist.