Why did India develop and acquire the Atomic bomb?

[Namak_Halaal]

This thread is an off shoot from another thread in which the motives of Pakistan’s nuclear capability were questioned. I had asked a simple question and was accused of irrelevant debate thus a thread dedicated to my simple question, a question aimed at Indians who question (and mock) the purpose behind Pakistan’s nuclear status.

Some of my observations on the topic of PAK/IND nuclear status thus far:

- When Pakistanis take pride in their country’s nuclear accomplishment, Indians are swift at reminding Pakistanis that India first tested their nuke in the 70s.

- When Pakistan’s nuclear expansion is reported in the media, Indians are adamant that the news should be treated as Masala news.

- When Pakistan declares it developed its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, Indians ask how Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has benefited the nation of Pakistan.

In light of the above, my simple question is, why did India develop the atomic bomb?

 

[GOAT]

Because India and Indians want to dominate the rest of the subcontinent and don't want to admit they long for their own manifest destiny. Why else build a bomb when you're militarily more advanced then your biggest enemy?

 

[Striver]

This is going to be a very interesting thread.
Looking forward to some troll type contributions.


Lol

 

[Bhaijaan]

We are just trendy
Same answer for Lunar probe and other space missions Just for fun, we have no dirty ambition

 

[lord boldemort]

Isn't it obvious? Once we got nuclear power they just weren't gonna sit around and let us intimidate them. They had to get their hands on it if they wanted to keep Kashmir.

 

[Looney]

nukes are fun

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Same answer for Lunar probe and other space missions Just for fun, we have no dirty ambition

3 wars between Pakistan and India in 47, 65, and 71. Yeah I can see why India developed & tested the bomb in 74 for fun.

 

[SAF]

47 wasnt really a war was it. More like a revolution.

 

[GOAT]

No, it was a war between two nations.

 

[SAF]

oh okay. It was over Kashmir. Got it.

 

[Sanchez]

No ones fooling no one here. India wants to dominate the subcontinent and will do it at any cost. There's no difference between USA, India or China. Capitalism is like the legal way to terrorize the world and when you're on the other side of the spectrum you're an illegal terrorist. It's the ideologies which determine the end of the the spectrum and at either end of it you have two extremists both on the wrong side but the capitalist ideology terms one as legal and the other illegal.

 

[Striver]

i wonder if indians are searching for some info..... nobody is responding to this thread... or maybe sleeping still?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

No ones fooling no one here. India wants to dominate the subcontinent and will do it at any cost. There's no difference between USA, India or China. Capitalism is like the legal way to terrorize the world and when you're on the other side of the spectrum you're an illegal terrorist. It's the ideologies which determine the end of the the spectrum and at either end of it you have two extremists both on the wrong side but the capitalist ideology terms one as legal and the other illegal.

Very interesting point of view. Food for thought.

Thanks!

 

[spiron]

Have any of you been doing your research before claiming that India wanted to dominate the sub continent hence the Atomic bomb ?

One theory which i read was to get china off India's back which had misused the trust of India by attacking the Indian territory in the region.
Also, India supported the entry of China into the Security Council from the sub continent first, as it believed China had substantial presence and ever since then, China has replied by not reciprocating that gesture. So the theory seems justified that to counter balance the Chinese this was one of the important steps.

To say that India wanted to get the nukes keeping in view Pakistan's rivalry is as stupid as it can get. India never attacked or even made statements of using Nukes against Pak at any time. Not even when Pak didnt had em.. nor after Pak getting Nuke armed status.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

To say that India wanted to get the nukes keeping in view Pakistan's rivalry is as stupid as it can get. India never attacked or even made statements of using Nukes against Pak at any time. Not even when Pak didnt had em.. nor after Pak getting Nuke armed status.

The same can be said of Pakistan. Pakistan has never attacked nor has ever made a statement of using it's Nukes, yet Pakistan is at the receiving end of unwarranted and unjustified political comments with respect to it's nuclear capability and intent.

 

[SAF]

The same can be said of Pakistan. Pakistan has never attacked nor has ever made a statement of using it's Nukes, yet Pakistan is at the receiving end of unwarranted and unjustified political comments with respect to it's nuclear capability and intent.

Well thats because Pak's nukes arsenal is expanding by the day, and the indians just feel threatened.

 

[spiron]

1) Pakistan has the policy of using the Nukes First.
Same is not true for India.

2) Pakistan's premier themselves declared that if any attempt is undertaken to disarm the nukes or taking away attempt is made.. they ll fire the nukes at India.

Any mature person can see and then infer.

3) Pakistan has never attacked ? I hope u mean only regarding usage of nukes.
Else Get the facts straight.


How you think from this point on is not something i can influence.



@Sanchez

Been smoking some stuff ??

Take a look at China's policy.
They never let the opinions of any kind visible to citizens even if it means good for the country.
If its against the ruling faction's policies, it ll be censored. Be it the radio, local news agency or even the Internet.
Highly polarized viewpoints the Chinese have in their own country only cuz China wants to move ahead with a machinery where not even a single cog is misaligned. Nobody can question their policies vis a vis Taiwan, Tibet or India. Just to mention a few.

That is the desire to Dominate, and that's how you do it too.. if you are morbid.


A young Chinese journalist recently asked an Indian journo in Beijing iirc (some convention), "How come your media cant control the negative things which are said regarding your ruling govt".
The other veteran Chinese journos have the viewpoint that China has far lesser opportunities to get in the reforms as compared to India.
With those opinions.. journalists esp.. you really think you been training your guns in the right direction ?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

1) Pakistan has the policy of using the Nukes.
Same is not true for India.

Of course Pakistan would have a policy of using nukes in the event of a war; any sane nation with a nuke must have a policy, including Israel and USA. So are you saying India doesn't have a policy? If that's the case, how does India expect to defend itself in the event of a nuclear war?

2) Pakistan's premier themselves declared that if any attempt is undertaken to disarm the nukes or taken away attempt is made.. they ll fire the nukes at India.

How you think from this point on is not something i can influence. Any mature person can see and then infer.

Links/Evidence supporting your claim please. Otherwise you are acting immaturely by spinning lies.

3) Pakistan has never attacked ? I hope u mean only regarding usage of nukes.
Else Get the facts straight.

Doh, what else did I mean? I was using your point and mirroring it. Of course I'm talking about Pakistan attacking a nation with nukes; Pakistan never has nor has Pakistan declared its intention to.

It's painfully obvious you are attempting to portray India as the innocent party, when the truth couldn't be any further.

 

[LethalSami]

1) Pakistan has the policy of using the Nukes First.
Same is not true for India.

source/??????????????????

 

[spiron]

if Pak openly declares we gonna use the nukes.. they never mention in case of a nuclear warfare. India already made it clear they wont be the first country to fire nukes. So what gives..?
India assures no first usage policy.. Pak says yes to first usage policy.. who is starting the nuke warfare..?

As for point 2 which i made: will supply the link which i read originally (didnt bookmarked it) but maybe this might suffice for the time being:-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread418323/pg1


@Namak Halal
I was engaging in a very simple and mature discussion here.
Your comment was uncalled for. Esp the spinning the lies part.I dont spin lies. ISI and Your Army never has left any scope for competition.


I am surprised so many Pakistanis are asking for the source for Pak's use first policy.
It was all over in the papers when Zardari came to power and made few statements saying they are ready to reconsider that policy.. which drew lot of flak .. no guesses.. from the Pak Army top brass.
But that gen is the trend here.. people engage in useless arguements without knowing the policies of their own country first.

 

[SAF]

if Pak openly declares we gonna use the nukes.. they never mention in case of a nuclear warfare. India already made it clear they wont be the first country to fire nukes. So what gives..?
India assures no first usage policy.. Pak says yes to first usage policy.. who is starting the nuke warfare..?

As for point 2 which i made: will supply the link which i read originally (didnt bookmarked it) but maybe this might suffice for the time being:-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread418323/pg1


I am surprised so many Pakistanis are asking for the source for Pak's use first policy.
It was all over in the papers when Zardari came to power and made few statements saying they are ready to reconsider that policy.. which drew lot of flak .. no guesses.. from the Pak Army top brass.
But that gen is the trend here.. people engage in useless arguements without knowing the policies of their own country first.

Lol nice. A topic on a forum is your main proof. Great.

 

[spiron]

Read my comments properly ?
i clearly said i havent bookmarked the original source but surely you can read newspaper when Zardari speaks something ?


This one is a quote from wikileaks.. esp for you

Pakistan's powerful Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani does not support President Asif Ali Zardari's "no-first-use" nuclear policy, according to US diplomatic cables released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.

"Although he has remained silent on the subject, Kayani does not support Zardari's statement last year to the Indian press that Pakistan would adopt a 'no first use' policy on nuclear weapons.

To clarify well before u get your teeth out.. that statement was rejected as soon as it came out by the Pak Army.
The source is Indian newspaper which i can google right now but surely you can take the word of wikileaks ?
Doesnt really takes too long to make sense here what is the msg ?

 

[Sanchez]

1) Pakistan has the policy of using the Nukes First.
Same is not true for India.

2) Pakistan's premier themselves declared that if any attempt is undertaken to disarm the nukes or taking away attempt is made.. they ll fire the nukes at India.

Any mature person can see and then infer.

3) Pakistan has never attacked ? I hope u mean only regarding usage of nukes.
Else Get the facts straight.


How you think from this point on is not something i can influence.



@Sanchez

Been smoking some stuff ??

Take a look at China's policy.
They never let the opinions of any kind visible to citizens even if it means good for the country.
If its against the ruling faction's policies, it ll be censored. Be it the radio, local news agency or even the Internet.
Highly polarized viewpoints the Chinese have in their own country only cuz China wants to move ahead with a machinery where not even a single cog is misaligned. Nobody can question their policies vis a vis Taiwan, Tibet or India. Just to mention a few.

That is the desire to Dominate, and that's how you do it too.. if you are morbid.


A young Chinese journalist recently asked an Indian journo in Beijing iirc (some convention), "How come your media cant control the negative things which are said regarding your ruling govt".
The other veteran Chinese journos have the viewpoint that China has far lesser opportunities to get in the reforms as compared to India.
With those opinions.. journalists esp.. you really think you been training your guns in the right direction ?

Whats your freakin point? China's only different from India & US is how they feel that they need no ideologies at place domestically at all. Their global perspective is in capitalism in which you have some fighting it out at one end of the spectrum along with India & USA(and russia as well). That's how capitalism works. The 'American Dream' if you will exerts you to reach the far end of the spectrum from the other far end. It never supports middle ground and balance.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

But that gen is the trend here.. people engage in useless arguements without knowing the policies of their own country first.

That's a bit rich isn't it? You are the one citing THEORIES on why India developed and acquired the bomb.

As for point 2 which i made: will supply the link which i read first but maybe this might suffice for the time being
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread418323/pg1


I am surprised so many Pakistanis are asking for the source for Pak's use first policy.
It was all over in the papers when Zardari came to power and made few statements saying they are ready to reconsider that policy.. which drew lot of flak .. no guesses.. from the Pak Army top brass.

The source you have cited is titled - HIGHLY SPECULATIVE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Secondly, if the claim you make was all over the papers then it should be a doddle for you to cite a credible link. Lastly there is no mention of Pak attacking India if Paks nuke's are dismantled etc (as you claimed), but rather Pakistan will *only* attack India in the event India will attack Pakistan.

Get real.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

@Namak Halal
I was engaging in a very simple and mature discussion here.
Your comment was uncalled for. Esp the spinning the lies part.I dont spin lies. ISI and Your Army never has left any scope for competition.

Especially the spinning lies part? What other comment was uncalled for?

As for mature, you are making bold claims devoid of any evidence. Is that mature on your part?

Just cite some credible evidence supporting point number 2 and I will be the first to apologise.

 

[spiron]

Simply will say one thing.. do you read newspapers or only know Pakpassion as the only source for your reg dose of news ?

I supplied another source for what i had mentioned earlier.
Read and think a while before jumping and hitting the Post Reply button.

 

[LethalSami]

i've learned that arguing with some indians on political issues is gonna lead to nowhere..........its like arguing with an ostrich with its head stuck in the a mud hole....

so didn't even bother again .....

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Read my comments properly ?
i clearly said i havent bookmarked the original source but surely you can read newspaper when Zardari speaks something ?


This one is a quote from wikileaks.. esp for you

Pakistan's powerful Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani does not support President Asif Ali Zardari's "no-first-use" nuclear policy, according to US diplomatic cables released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.

"Although he has remained silent on the subject, Kayani does not support Zardari's statement last year to the Indian press that Pakistan would adopt a 'no first use' policy on nuclear weapons.

To clarify well before u get your teeth out.. that statement was rejected as soon as it came out by the Pak Army.
The source is Indian newspaper which i can google right now but surely you can take the word of wikileaks ?
Doesnt really takes too long to make sense here what is the msg ?

And you inferred the above as Pakistan nuking India in the event any attempt is made to disarm Pakistan's nukes?

Terrific.

Next you will be claiming there is no conflict of opinions within the Indian government.

 

[spiron]

i didn inferred.
Will look up and supply that link as well.

Too bad we dont have PM system here.

 

[spiron]

i've learned that arguing with some indians on political issues is gonna lead to nowhere..........its like arguing with an ostrich with its head stuck in the a mud hole....

so didn't even bother again .....

Very kind of you.
Till we meet again.. and hopefully when you start reading newspapers as well.

 

[LethalSami]

Very kind of you.
Till we meet again.. and hopefully when you start reading newspapers as well.

maybe u should read less of BS indian print media and especially avoid the "NEWS" propaganda on tv.........

call it mission "Restore Sanity", then u might have some common sense

 

[SAF]

Read my comments properly ?
i clearly said i havent bookmarked the original source but surely you can read newspaper when Zardari speaks something ?


This one is a quote from wikileaks.. esp for you


To clarify well before u get your teeth out.. that statement was rejected as soon as it came out by the Pak Army.
The source is Indian newspaper which i can google right now but surely you can take the word of wikileaks ?
Doesnt really takes too long to make sense here what is the msg ?

Pak dismissed the report.
Source was an indian newspaper
And no I dont read newspapers, its 21st century. Ever heard of internet?


nuff said.

 

[spiron]

your nuff said would be rendered redundant if the google wouldnt be spewing all the latest news link atm.
and by newspapers.. ever heard of Online prints ?
i too dont have the time to wait for 2 bit of news from stupid TV channels which takes 30 mins to wade its way thru.


@Lethal Sami
What part of Wikileaks you dont understand ?

Anyhow, it aint too fruitful to be arguing with dopeheaded people.
I am not accusing any pakistani here but the dud esablishment and the two faced ISI simply.
If that fact cant be understood, then it indeed is a waste of a nice free office time.

 

[SAF]

You come on here anf accuse us of using 'attack first' policy with no solid proof. cmon, just try little harder. Posting stuff from a forum site isnt gonna help.


Btw, why did India developed the nukes first again?

 

[LethalSami]

Btw, why did India developed the nukes first again?

For the love of Humanity

DON'T THINK NEGATIVE

 

[Namak_Halaal]

i didn inferred.
Will look up and supply that link as well.

Too bad we dont have PM system here.

Didn't infer?

Here's the statement you posted earlier in this thread:

Pakistan's premier themselves declared that if any attempt is undertaken to disarm the nukes or taken away attempt is made.. they ll fire the nukes at India.

First of all, the Wikileak link you've cited refers to a comment made by a Pakistani General, not the Premier of Pakistan. Secondly, no where in the Wikileaks link does it mention that Pakistan will nuke India in the event any attempt is made to disarm Pakistan's nukes.

I'm not sure how a PM system would help your cause here but you have assumed too much from too little; or simply put, spinning yarns.

 

[SAF]

Forget who attacks who first, I just want to know why India created atomic bomb first. thats all.

 

[jeetu]

I believe the atomic bombs were developed to counter threat posed by China.

 

[Sachin85]

1948: The objective of the tribal invasion was to capture control of the Kashmir valley including its principal city, Srinagar, the summer capital of the state (Jammu being the winter capital). The entire undertaking was codenamed Operation Gulmarg. Maj Gen Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army, codename "Jebel Tariq", was made the commander.

1965: On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15

1971: Better you ask the Bangladeshis about Pakistan's actions prompting a war.

1999: Kargil. Everybody knows who started this one. Musharraf is pretty proud of it too.

If you had a neighbour like this who has attacked you 4 times, and a neighbour on the other side like China, wouldn't you want a deterrent??

India had the nuke before Pakistan? If India wanted the bomb to attack Pakistan why didn't we just use it?

Imagine having a neighbour who attacks you even though you have nukes like in 1999.

 

[GOAT]

1948: The objective of the tribal invasion was to capture control of the Kashmir valley including its principal city, Srinagar, the summer capital of the state (Jammu being the winter capital). The entire undertaking was codenamed Operation Gulmarg. Maj Gen Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army, codename "Jebel Tariq", was made the commander.

1965: On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15

1971: Better you ask the Bangladeshis about Pakistan's actions prompting a war.

1999: Kargil. Everybody knows who started this one. Musharraf is pretty proud of it too.

If you had a neighbour like this who has attacked you 4 times, and a neighbour on the other side like China, wouldn't you want a deterrent??

India had the nuke before Pakistan? If India wanted the bomb to attack Pakistan why didn't we just use it?

Imagine having a neighbour who attacks you even though you have nukes like in 1999.

Post did nothing but to prove India wanted the bomb to deter Pakistan.

You mad we still didn't get scurred? Bravehearted lions coming at you bloodcat cowards.

 

[Sachin85]

Post did nothing but to prove India wanted the bomb to deter Pakistan.

You mad we still didn't get scurred? Bravehearted lions coming at you bloodcat cowards.

Yes, to deter. Not to attack. Which still didn't work in 1999.

Is this some fad in Canada? Lettuce, cereal, scurred etc?

 

[GOAT]

Yeah.



This is how we talk. In Canada.

 

[Sachin85]

Yeah.



This is how we talk. In Canada.

First time I'm hearing aboot it.

 

[Golden arm]

No ones fooling no one here. India wants to dominate the subcontinent and will do it at any cost. There's no difference between USA, India or China. Capitalism is like the legal way to terrorize the world and when you're on the other side of the spectrum you're an illegal terrorist. It's the ideologies which determine the end of the the spectrum and at either end of it you have two extremists both on the wrong side but the capitalist ideology terms one as legal and the other illegal.

wonderful and most mature analysis i have come across recently. thanks for sharing. I agree with every word.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Bravehearted lions coming at you bloodcat cowards.

no- one is attacking anyone!

this is just a standoff - both countries pointing big heavy nuclear guns at each other and no one will fire.

Just to keep the standoff going both sides need to show that they are not weaker than the other!! in turn burning money on fazool weapons!

Real shame considering how many people cant have two decent meals a day!

Anyone who is feeling overly patriotic please go without food for 2 whole days before passing judgement.

 

[Animal]

Childish posts here. Nobody seems to understand the horror of nuclear weapons. Please watch this mockumentary (made in 1971) to understand what a nuclear weapon can do. Maybe, just maybe, this moronic obsession with nukes in PP will be tempered if enough people watch it.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2864871032688882557&hl=en&fs=true /embed>

 

[deathstreak]

cause we wanted to be counted among the big boys
Pakistan's making nukes after India's test came off as no suprise. It had to happen.

Though what's the number of nukes that Pakistan has at present and the growth in number is more interesting.
You guys have more nukes than us, soon more than China and soon will be behind the US and Russia, I guess in the numbers game.

 

[LethalSami]

PAK had developed nukes in 1984....................we just test in 1998 to show India after they conducted their showing off.........

 

[LethalSami]

Childish posts here. Nobody seems to understand the horror of nuclear weapons. Please watch this mockumentary (made in 1971) to understand what a nuclear weapon can do. Maybe, just maybe, this moronic obsession with nukes in PP will be tempered if enough people watch it.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2864871032688882557&hl=en&fs=true /embed>

we know what nukes do.........its horrific....

we love nukes coz we can use it as a deterrent coz no one wants war............

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)= Great Deterrent....

thats why every nation should have nukes.......to protect itself from predators like Zionists and the imperialists

 

[Animal]

^ Pretty clear you have not seen the film I have posted. No rational mind can say "We love nukes" after watching it.

 

[Xohaib]

Stop thionking about India,Our biggest enemies are zardari and nawaz.

 

[adit_sh]

No one want to mention about the energy concerns that India is facing now? Nukes are very important 10 years from now with the energy shortage that it will face.

 

[Dr. Schaden Freud]

I don't think anyone was ridiculing Pakistan's nuclear acquisition in the other thread, it was the school of thinking that people of Pakistan and people in Palestine are alive only because of the nukes and would have been invaded and murdered till now, without them, is stupid.

India acquired nukes because many other countries had them and India did not want to be left behind in defense requirements. Pretty much the reason why Pakistan acquired them.

But, that doesn't change the fact that existent of nuclear weapons is a dangerous sword hanging over humanity, as a whole, and it'd be the best if all the countries with nuclear power decide to collectively give up their weapons.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Indian acquired it due to a threat from CHina, Pakistan acquired it due to an Indian threat and so on and so forth.

In the process, billions of dollars which could have been wisely spent on education, health, nutrition, water etc have been totally wasted. All that the nuclear bomb has given us is a false sense of security. Not sure if having 100 or even 1000 fissile bombs each is going to provide food to the millions who go without food.

 

[UmarAkmals-fan]

when ur neighbours r big hearted u have to have nukes :

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Childish posts here. Nobody seems to understand the horror of nuclear weapons. Please watch this mockumentary (made in 1971) to understand what a nuclear weapon can do. Maybe, just maybe, this moronic obsession with nukes in PP will be tempered if enough people watch it.

I’ve not read a single comment endorsing the use of Nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should direct your concern towards users who claim India developed the bomb for ‘fun’.

India acquired nukes because many other countries had them and India did not want to be left behind in defense requirements. Pretty much the reason why Pakistan acquired them.

Many other countries? Only 5 had Nukes at the time: US, UK, Russia, China, and France.

I don't think anyone was ridiculing Pakistan's nuclear acquisition in the other thread, it was the school of thinking that people of Pakistan and people in Palestine are alive only because of the nukes and would have been invaded and murdered till now, without them, is stupid.

I think you were reading the wrong thread; in addition there’ve been a number of threads in the past where Pakistan’s nuclear capability has been mocked and questioned by Indians PPers. Where are those Indians who mocked Pakistanis for taking pride in our Nuclear capability? This thread was a chance for them to gloat and rejoice in India’s nuclear achievement.

It’s very simple; no one questions the nuclear capability of non-Islamic nations including Israel, France, UK, USA, China, Russia, and India. There’s a reason why India acquired the bomb with the help of USA. Why and for what purpose? Why did the USA help and encourage India in acquiring the bomb but spent years thwarting Pakistan’s efforts? Can you answer this with clear cut honesty?

The school of thought with respect to Palestine, Pakistan, and the atomic bomb is every bit significant and relevant if one sees the broader picture. If Pakistan didn’t have the bomb, If Iran wasn’t perceived as a Nuclear threat, then the politics of the Middle East would be very different today; I defy anyone to deny this notion. Israel were unmoved by countless international requests to assimilate with the Palestinians but both advise and appeals fell on deaf ears. As a result one nation had the sand to stand up to Western hypocrisy, Iran. The result is evidently clear, Israel is now in position to compromise; such a feat would be nigh on impossible had Islamic nations not acquired the atomic bomb.

Moreover, it was the West that dubbed Pakistan’s achievement as the ‘Islamic’ bomb. Why the distinction? When was the last time you heard of the West invoking terms such as The ‘Jewish’ Bomb? The ‘Hindu’ bomb? The ‘Christian’ Bomb? The ‘Buddhist’ Bomb? You getting my point here? The first ever distinction based on a religion was coined by the West. Why the exclusive distinction with respect to Islam?

So let’s get real here. Every man and his dog in the subcontinent knows that an inherent animosity exists between Pakistan and India for the simple reason both nations were created on the back of two opposing religions. Religion is the fundamental key in global politics whether you like it or not. Meaning, India developed the bomb for two purposes; to intimidate Islam, and to defend itself from Pakistan. Pakistan developed the bomb for two purposes; to protect Islam, and to defend itself from India.

PS: Let the record reflect, not once have I endorsed the use of Nuclear Weapons.

 

[deathstreak]

So let’s get real here. Every man and his dog in the subcontinent knows that an inherent animosity exists between Pakistan and India for the simple reason both nations were created on the back of two opposing religions. Religion is the fundamental key in global politics whether you like it or not. Meaning, India developed the bomb for two purposes; to intimidate Islam, and to defend itself from China. Pakistan developed the bomb for two purposes; to protect Islam, and to defend itself from India.

PS: Let the record reflect, not once have I endorsed the use of Nuclear Weapons.

Second part easily agreed.
First part makes no sense, except for people who think India is for hindus only.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Second part easily agreed.
First part makes no sense, except for people who think India is for hindus only.

India was created for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims; the partition was based on religion.

 

[soton]

Moreover, it was the West that dubbed Pakistan’s achievement as the ‘Islamic’ bomb. Why the distinction? When was the last time you heard of the West invoking terms such as The ‘Jewish’ Bomb? The ‘Hindu’ bomb? The ‘Christian’ Bomb? The ‘Buddhist’ Bomb? You getting my point here? The first ever distinction based on a religion was coined by the West. Why the exclusive distinction with respect to Islam?

Was it Western media which labelled it as Islamic bomb or Was it the Pakistani politicians to fool their own people and to get financial support from other Muslim countries .

So let’s get real here. Every man and his dog in the subcontinent knows that an inherent animosity exists between Pakistan and India for the simple reason both nations were created on the back of two opposing religions. Religion is the fundamental key in global politics whether you like it or not. Meaning, India developed the bomb for two purposes; to intimidate Islam, and to defend itself from China. Pakistan developed the bomb for two purposes; to protect Islam, and to defend itself from India.

PS: Let the record reflect, not once have I endorsed the use of Nuclear Weapons.

As an Indian I find your statements very offensive and completely untrue as India has never been against Islam nor does Pakistan been against Hinduism. There are more Muslims living in India then in Pakistan so your statement that India developed nuclear bomb to intimidate Islam and Pakistan is some how saviour of Islam is ludicrous .

 

[skittles]

You come on here anf accuse us of using 'attack first' policy with no solid proof. cmon, just try little harder. Posting stuff from a forum site isnt gonna help.


Btw, why did India developed the nukes first again?

First:

The other change is over doctrine and delivery. India has long held a position of “no first use” of nukes. Pakistan, by contrast, with weaker conventional forces, refuses to rule out the option of starting a nuclear war against India, and is now taking steps that could make such first use more likely. Last month it test-fired a new missile, the Hatf IX, with a range of just 60km and specifically designed for war-fighting. Two missiles are carried in tubes on a transporter and can be fired, accurately, at short notice. The warheads are small, low-yielding devices for destroying large tank formations with relatively little explosive damage or radiation beyond the battlefield.

From the May 19th, 2011 Article in the Economist, titled:
A rivalry that threatens the world
Pakistan’s dangerous fondness for jihadis, the Taliban and nuclear weapons is rooted in its fears of India

Link here, not sure how much longer it will be available online for free.

Second:

Why did India develop nukes? I don't know enough to say, so I won't attempt an answer. But I did answer the lies being spread here about the no first use of nukes policies of India and Pakistan.

 

[Sachin85]

I’ve not read a single comment endorsing the use of Nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should direct your concern towards users who claim India developed the bomb for ‘fun’.


Many other countries? Only 5 had Nukes at the time: US, UK, Russia, China, and France.


I think you were reading the wrong thread; in addition there’ve been a number of threads in the past where Pakistan’s nuclear capability has been mocked and questioned by Indians PPers. Where are those Indians who mocked Pakistanis for taking pride in our Nuclear capability? This thread was a chance for them to gloat and rejoice in India’s nuclear achievement.

It’s very simple; no one questions the nuclear capability of non-Islamic nations including Israel, France, UK, USA, China, Russia, and India. There’s a reason why India acquired the bomb with the help of USA. Why and for what purpose? Why did the USA help and encourage India in acquiring the bomb but spent years thwarting Pakistan’s efforts? Can you answer this with clear cut honesty?

The school of thought with respect to Palestine, Pakistan, and the atomic bomb is every bit significant and relevant if one sees the broader picture. If Pakistan didn’t have the bomb, If Iran wasn’t perceived as a Nuclear threat, then the politics of the Middle East would be very different today; I defy anyone to deny this notion. Israel were unmoved by countless international requests to assimilate with the Palestinians but both advise and appeals fell on deaf ears. As a result one nation had the sand to stand up to Western hypocrisy, Iran. The result is evidently clear, Israel is now in position to compromise; such a feat would be nigh on impossible had Islamic nations not acquired the atomic bomb.

Moreover, it was the West that dubbed Pakistan’s achievement as the ‘Islamic’ bomb. Why the distinction? When was the last time you heard of the West invoking terms such as The ‘Jewish’ Bomb? The ‘Hindu’ bomb? The ‘Christian’ Bomb? The ‘Buddhist’ Bomb? You getting my point here? The first ever distinction based on a religion was coined by the West. Why the exclusive distinction with respect to Islam?

So let’s get real here. Every man and his dog in the subcontinent knows that an inherent animosity exists between Pakistan and India for the simple reason both nations were created on the back of two opposing religions. Religion is the fundamental key in global politics whether you like it or not. Meaning, India developed the bomb for two purposes; to intimidate Islam, and to defend itself from China. Pakistan developed the bomb for two purposes; to protect Islam, and to defend itself from India.

PS: Let the record reflect, not once have I endorsed the use of Nuclear Weapons.

I'm not sure if thats right. From what I remember there was a lot of pressure on India to sign the CTBT and there were trade restrictions put on us and other tactics were used to put pressure on India to prevent us from going nuclear.

Your points about religion are laughable at best. India got the bomb to intimidate Islam? Pakistan as I mentioned above has started all the wars with India, one after both countries had nukes, which country do you think has been the aggressor?

Religion playing a role in global politics again is laughable. Is this why all the muslim nations get along so well? Do christians love jews as much as the US loves Israel??

 

[Sachin85]

India was created for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims; the partition was based on religion.

Why did so many Muslims stay in India then? Why do they continue to stay in India?

India was meant to be secular, which it is. Pakistan was meant to be a state for Muslims, which it is.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

I'm not sure if thats right. From what I remember there was a lot of pressure on India to sign the CTBT and there were trade restrictions put on us and other tactics were used to put pressure on India to prevent us from going nuclear.

I suggest you read up on the Nuclear equipment sold by the US to India.

Your points about religion are laughable at best. India got the bomb to intimidate Islam? Pakistan as I mentioned above has started all the wars with India, one after both countries had nukes, which country do you think has been the aggressor?

Are my point laughable because you are unable to address them?

Religion playing a role in global politics again is laughable. Is this why all the muslim nations get along so well? Do christians love jews as much as the US loves Israel??

How old are you? Yes religion plays a a fundamental role in Geopolitics. There's no point in me explaining to you why the USA supports Israel; a Jewish state. hint: Messiah & Jeruslum.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Why did so many Muslims stay in India then? Why do they continue to stay in India?

Perhaps the Muslims who stayed behind believed they could relive the era of when Muslims ruled India. Need a history lesson here?

India was meant to be secular, which it is. Pakistan was meant to be a state for Muslims, which it is.

India was meant to be secular? BS. Don't sugarcoat India's motives with modern day political spiel. Secular you say? Feudalism ring any bells? Or how about the Glorious Indian Caste system that remain prevalent today?

The idea behind the partition was clear cut, India was meant to be a state for Hindus, and Pakistan a state for Muslims.

Face facts, Hindu's have always felt threatened by Muslims and this very truth was the impetus to India developing it's nukes.

 

[Animal]

India was created for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims; the partition was based on religion.

That's a simplistic crude assertion with no historical facts to back it. The constitution adopted by India in 1950 states clearly that it is to be a secular democratic republic where the state would provide equal rights to people of all religions and castes. The partition may have been based on religion, but India is not based on religion.

 

[Sachin85]

I suggest you read up on the Nuclear equipment sold by the US to India.




Are my point laughable because you are unable to address them?




How old are you? Yes religion plays a a fundamental role in Geopolitics. There's no point in me explaining to you why the USA supports Israel; a Jewish state. hint: Messiah & Jeruslum.

Amazing. You need to wake up. Nations look out for their own interests period. Religion is at best secondary.

Please look up the friendly relations between countries having a common religion. Afghanistan-pakistan, iran-pakistan, iran-iraq, iraq-kuwait, pakistan-bangladesh, india-nepal, etc etc.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

That's a simplistic crude assertion with no historical facts to back it. The constitution adopted by India in 1950 states clearly that it is to be a secular democratic republic where the state would provide equal rights to people of all religions and castes. The partition may have been based on religion, but India is not based on religion.

You do realise 1950 comes after 1947 right? 47 being the year of the partition and all. Talk to be about pre 47 years. Clearly India had no option but to change their constitution given the fact many Muslims decided to say within India.

 

[Dr. Schaden Freud]

Perhaps the Muslims who stayed behind believed they could relive the era of when Muslims ruled India. Need a history lesson here?

Perhaps, they felt that they'd take their chances in the secular state where they had lived for years and had held their property rather than migrating to a different place?

India was meant to be secular? BS. Don't sugarcoat India's motives with modern day political spiel. The idea behind the partition was clear cut, India was meant to be a state for Hindus, and Pakistan a state for Muslims.

India was always meant to be secular. Most Indian(post independence) leaders had not pressed for different nations but had agreed to it just to hasten the process of independence.

Right from the very first paragraph of the draft of Indian constitution, India has maintained its beliefs in secular ideals and that the country is meant for people of all religions.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Amazing. You need to wake up. Nations look out for their own interests period. Religion is at best secondary.

Please look up the friendly relations between countries having a common religion. Afghanistan-pakistan, iran-pakistan, iran-iraq, iraq-kuwait, pakistan-bangladesh, india-nepal, etc etc.

Did you read up on the part where US sold nuclear equipment to India?

Citing nations that share a religious base is of irrelevance in a topic where opposing religions gives rise to Nuclear assets.

Try again.

 

[nish_mate]

This thread is an off shoot from another thread in which the motives of Pakistan’s nuclear capability were questioned. I had asked a simple question and was accused of irrelevant debate thus a thread dedicated to my simple question, a question aimed at Indians who question (and mock) the purpose behind Pakistan’s nuclear status.

Some of my observations on the topic of PAK/IND nuclear status thus far:

- When Pakistanis take pride in their country’s nuclear accomplishment, Indians are swift at reminding Pakistanis that India first tested their nuke in the 70s.

- When Pakistan’s nuclear expansion is reported in the media, Indians are adamant that the news should be treated as Masala news.

- When Pakistan declares it developed its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, Indians ask how Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has benefited the nation of Pakistan.

In light of the above, my simple question is, why did India develop the atomic bomb?

India developed atomic bomb to ensure Ghazve Hind remains dream...

On a serious note, India is located between an Islamic Arc and a Communist China and dont think either of the neighbour on either side wants India to exist in it's present form and thats why India got her nukes.

Sweet and simple

 

[Sachin85]

Perhaps the Muslims who stayed behind believed they could relive the era of when Muslims ruled India. Need a history lesson here?




India was meant to be secular? BS. Don't sugarcoat India's motives with modern day political spiel. Secular you say? Feudalism ring any bells? Or how about the Glorious Indian Caste system that remain prevalent today?

The idea behind the partition was clear cut, India was meant to be a state for Hindus, and Pakistan a state for Muslims.

Face facts, Hindu's have always felt threatened by Muslims and this very truth was the impetus to India developing it's nukes.

Quite possibly the stupidest post I have read.

First, Muslims ruled India? Mughals ruled India. Not Muslims, it was a monarchy not a theocracy. You would have been another commoner just like any other hindu. Get that into your head first.

If India was for Hindus only why did they allow the Muslims to stay? Muslims, christians, jains, buddhists, parsis, jews etc all stayed in India for a reason.

Hindus are not threatened by Muslims. India is threatened by Pakistan, because we have been repeatedly attacked by the same.

Do not confuse Pakistan with Islam and India with Hinduism.

India developed its nukes to deter Pakistan and China. Pakistan had initiated all wars with us at that point and started one more after we got nukes. Only a nutjob wouldn't arm himself after his neighbour tries to attack him repeatedly. Repeatedly. Not for your fantasy reason for use against Islam.

 

[Dr. Schaden Freud]

You do realise 1950 comes after 1947 right? 47 being the year of the partition and all. Talk to be about pre 47 years. Clearly India had no option but to change their constitution given the fact many Muslims decided to say within India.

You do realize that there were a lot of Buddhists, Christians and Sikhs in India both pre and post 1947. Their rights over and presence in India was never seriously questioned by any non-fringe elements even before and during the partition. In fact, Sikhs migrated to Indian land in large numbers from West Punjab before partition to stay in India.

So, even if all muslims of India had migrated, which they did not, India would have still remained a secular country.

 

[Equinox]

One thing I have observed among Indians is that they are obsessed with the label of "superpower." They are obessed with achieving double-digit economic growth without addressing inequality and poverty. And I get the feeling that acquiring nuclear weapons too has more to do with this obsession than any other practical use.

 

[Animal]

You do realise 1950 comes after 1947 right? 47 being the year of the partition and all. Talk to be about pre 47 years. Clearly India had no option but to change their constitution given the fact many Muslims decided to say within India.

Not the sharpest knife in the tray are you? The constitution was ADOPTED in 1950. Work on it was begun the day the constituent assembly was elected in 1946.

And yes, India DID have the option to force through a Hindu constitution which would have relegated minority religious groups to a peripheral role in it's society and polity.

Thanks to visionary leaders in the constituent assembly like Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, SC Bose and many others, India did not pander to Hindu fundamentalists who were clamoring for a pro-Hindu constitution.

 

[Sachin85]

Did you read up on the part where US sold nuclear equipment to India?

Citing nations that share a religious base is of irrelevance in a topic where opposing religions gives rise to Nuclear assets.

Try again.

But you said religion plays an important role in global politics. Please tell me what role it played in the 1971 bangladesh war, or how it affected the relationship between countries which have the same religion.

Don't withdraw now, show me what role religion has played. Just saying something and running away isn't going to convince anybody. I have an open mind, really want to see what you're going to come up with.

Havent looked up on US equipment sales yet. Will do soon. Did they sell it to us because we have some christians or does the bible ask them to support hindu majority countries??

 

[DHONI183]

Sheer stupidity, isn´t it? I mean, I cannot stop any country from acquiring it, but wouldn´t it be a huge shame on humanity if all nations were to be proud about it or were to consider it a "gift" from God.

My suggestion to Indian authorities would be to get their educational system better and to spend more on poor people living in many parts of the country.

With peace!

 

[jzdanish]

Quite possibly the stupidest post I have read.

First, Muslims ruled India? Mughals ruled India. Not Muslims, it was a monarchy not a theocracy. You would have been another commoner just like any other hindu. Get that into your head first.

If India was for Hindus only why did they allow the Muslims to stay? Muslims, christians, jains, buddhists, parsis, jews etc all stayed in India for a reason.

Hindus are not threatened by Muslims. India is threatened by Pakistan, because we have been repeatedly attacked by the same.

Do not confuse Pakistan with Islam and India with Hinduism.

India developed its nukes to deter Pakistan and China. Pakistan had initiated all wars with us at that point and started one more after we got nukes. Only a nutjob wouldn't arm himself after his neighbour tries to attack him repeatedly. Repeatedly. Not for your fantasy reason for use against Islam.

You have to be kidding with me. ISLAMIC republic of PAKISTAN. It was built on ISLAM, for the MUSLIMS. Pakistan and ISLAM are forever linked!

 

[SAF]

You have to be kidding with me. ISLAMIC republic of PAKISTAN. It was built on ISLAM, for the MUSLIMS. Pakistan and ISLAM are forever linked!

You have to be kidding with me. HINDUSTAN. The LAND of HINDUS. It was built on HINDUSIM for the HINDUS. Hindustan and HINDUISM are forever linked!


And the thing is, almost all of Hindus of the world live in India/Nepal.

 

[Cosmic]

Because They have Small Hearts

 

[gsivak]

You have to be kidding with me. HINDUSTAN. The LAND of HINDUS. India will always be linked to Hindus.


And the thing is, almost all of Hindus of the world live in India/Nepal.

Hindustan is the name given by the arabs...I think. It is not something we chose for ourselves. Just because your country is a theocracy (though your founding father had a different idea of Pakistan than what it turned out to be) doesn't mean we Indians think India is only for the Hindus.