Read the article from Nuclearfiles.org. What do they suggest is the solution to the nuclear issue with India? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/post-cold-war/india-pakistan/india-pakistan-conflict.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There should be proper internation negotiations between the UN and Indi, and our own politicians should get more involved.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the UN should step in but i believe that our politicians have enough things here in the USA that they have to worry about before going and stepping in between India and Pakastan
One suggestion toward a solution to the nuclear issue is to maintain a "no first use" policy. This however leads nations with nuclear capabilities to want to create a "second use" capacity. India's retaliation motives are that they refuse to tolerate what they perceive as terrorist attacks, while those same accused terrorists claim to be Pakistan’s freedom fighters. The UN has been trying to persuade both Pakistan and India that a nuclear war would be devastating for both countries and is not a viable option.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there's much more that the UN can do to stop the escalations between the two countries. As is pointed out in the article, both countries have great internal instability and should focus more on their own country than what's going on with the other. This won't happen while the leaders of those nations are trying to distract the whole society from these internal issues by uniting against a common enemy.
Both of them are in a tight spot right now and its only getting worse over time. It would be easier to settle this problem if all the other countries didn't have their own problems to deal with. I think India and Pakistan need to resolve their differences and get rid of their nuclear weapons like the article says they should do. If you get rid of the nuclear weapons then i don't see this getting too out of hand. And i agree with the part that they have enough problems in their own countries to being making a big deal of where Kashmir belongs to.
ReplyDeleteIndia has stated it will not use nuclear weapons first while Pakistan has said it will. Many worry that although a no first use policy is good it can lead to a second use policy which sometimes becomes indistinguishable from the first for want of retaliation. Also India has become increasingly adament about their zero tolerance for terrorism which then gives them more leeway in attacking the so called "terrorists".
ReplyDeleteThe UN has tried to negotiate peace settlements but have so far been unsuccesful. The catalyst for this ongoing fight between Pakistan and India is Kashmir. I think if they could pull their heads out of the sand, sit down and decide what they want to do about this nuclear weapons would not be a major issue. That is until they decide to go back to attacking each other for religious and so called terrorist reasonings.
There are both short term and long term solutions to the nuclear issue in India. The short term would be to have a more official language and proper international negotiations at the UN to resolve the problem of Kashmir. While the long term being to have all NWS to carry out their obligations under the NPT and get rid of the nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both the short term and long term solutions. In order to solve anything their needs to be understanding and affective communication between people to allow compromise and negotiation. If know one is willing to make these changes their will be no solution.
The NWS needs to go through with their obligations and get rid of the nuclear weapons as well. If the NWS took the time and put the words of the treaty into action they would be able to push India and Pakistan to sign the treaty too. In order to do so the NWS needs to fllow through with the commitments of the treaty; which hasn't happened causing India to be less persuaded.
They suggest that the solution to the nuclear issue with India is to persuade both sides the nuclear weapons do not make the world a safer place, but it does in fact make it more dangerous. They also state that a long term solution would be to make the states carry out their obilgations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which says they would have to get rid of their nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with both of these solutions. However, I do not think that the short term solution would be able to accomplis much. Persuasion is not a good tactic when it comes to something like this. The treaty would work well, but both sides would have to go along with the obligations. I agree that both of these should be taken into action because like it said, nuclear weapons are very dangerous.
India stated that they would try to not use nuclear weapons, although Pakistan said that they still would use them. They are also trying to develop a "first use" policy, but are afraid that it will lead to the development of more programs that will all eventually morph together. One of the long term solutions they're trying to get intact is that the NWS have to follow through under the NPT and get rid of their nuclear weapons. This is made difficult because in 1968 when the NPT was made, both India and Pakistan were trying to test their nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe UN is also trying very hard to get their point across that there are better ways to resolve conflict between countries than nuclear weapons. I agree with what the UN and the few peace activists in India and Pakistan are trying to do. I think that instead of just suggesting peace, they should somehow enforce it in a more straight-forward manner.
After reading the article, I gathered that the solution to all of the madness between India and Pakistan is to have the two countries agree to a peace treaty, which would please both sides. This treaty would be put into action by the UN, but that too has some issues within itself. I actually agree with the article, that India and Pakistan should both take a step back and consider the mass amount of destruction a nuclear war would cause. It would not only be devastating to themselves, but to a chunk of the rest of the world. I believe that peace can overcome and outweigh violence any day, in almost any situation in which you can compare the two. As for India and Pakistan I think they should set aside their religious differences and take a look at the whole world for once instead of just their enemy.
ReplyDeleteThe UN needs to reason with the two countries more and get them to sign a treaty, stating that there can be no more use of nuclear activity.
ReplyDeleteThey do need to find a way to stop them from using the missiles in the future if they were to plan to, its wrong no one should get to choose who lives and dies. Peace is what this world needs, nobody needs to die it would send everyone crazy if anyone deployed a missile at a country because then everyone would shoot their missiles and everyone would end up dieing.
The UN and its allies seems to think that just telling a hostile country to sign a "get rid of your WMDs" treaty will solve the problem. I'm not sure if I agree to this.
ReplyDeleteYes, we do need to get rid of this threat. Nobody wants to be attacked with nukes. But we can't just expect a few countries to police the entire world. If the UN keeps us that atitude, it might just make the problem worse.
Instead, we shouldn't try and force a country to see things our way. First, we need to focus on defusing the situation between India and Pakistan. That is the real danger here, because it is the reason nukes might be used. After a peaceful solution to this problem can be found, we can try to find a compromise as far as nuclear weapons go.
It is dangerous to annoy a country that has the ability to destroy so many people in this way. A nuclear war would be averted better if we left these two countries alone until they settle their differences.