Indian PM Modi eyes breakthrough nuclear pact on Japan trip

India see's it's weapons as a deterrent against it's nuclear neighbors? That's funny since Pakistan and India have remained at war with each other for so many years. Japan wants a guarantee that India won't conduct nuclear test but the reasoning behind the deal is an attempt by two democracies to balance the rising weight of China, offset the backlash at home, in response to the Fukushima nuclear accident and strengthen defense ties? Meanwhile India's former AEC doesn't want to be named and Japan remains tight lipped. Seem like a bit of contradiction and why the secrecy over details if there is no hidden agenda?

India see's it's weapons as a deterrent against it's nuclear neighbors? That's funny since Pakistan and India have remained at war with each other for so many years.

To correct you, India and Pakistan have gone to war 4 times (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999). There now is a ceasefire in effect and direct hostilities have ceased, though border skirmishes remain quite common. India's nuclear weapons do serve as a deterrent in that the Pakistan knows that any use of nuclear weapons from it's side will evoke a retaliation that will ensure the mutual destruction of both countries.

Note that India has a "no-first use" doctrine with regards to nuclear weapons. Quoting from Wikipedia:

India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorise the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'" According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001–2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.

Quite frankly I don't think India is in any position to give up nuclear weapons or accede to demands of banning tests. The situation with India's neighbors remains volatile, and there are rumors that there is going to another military coup (maybe not open but more of a soft one) in Pakistan. Given this precarious situation, India cannot afford to let go of it's most effective deterrence.

What you a calling a "scrimish

India says China invaded them once, but India is taking the same measure as Japan --- Try to forget the history of that period.

This is totally different as China, China had been invaded by Japan, and China is tring to memory every details to memory that periodical history. Can I say that the only explain of these different behaviors is India is keep lying?

Can I also say that the India was the invader as a matter of fact?

No business agreements just two twitter friends will be meeting in person.

FullM3taL: Sorry I accidentally pressed submit. Well it might not be officially called a war but what you call a "skirmish" has been happening for MANY years, with MANY being killed by each side. Having nuclear weapons has NOT deterred them from fighting and killing each other! Not sure of your point (in regards to the Wikipedia quote) but the rest of what I said comes directly from this article.

The problem with Japan is that it is under the Nuclear security umbrella of USA while it gives lectures to India on security. Inspite of its lack of economic might of Japan, India wants to be an independent power without security blanket from any power. Does Japan really believe Americans will fight their war especially against rising China? India is facing not only china which gets all the comfort of a Nuclear P 5 but also a nation like Pakistan which has a policy of using nukes in a combat situation. Japan should show more maturity

@Stuart: I never said India's nuclear weapons were a deterrent against a conventional war. They are a deterrent against nuclear war. During the 1999 conflict, when the situation was threatening to turn into an all-out conventional war, the US and other countries put huge pressure on Pakistan to withdraw troops specifically because there was a risk that the war would go nuclear, with both countries having access to nuclear weapons. And even in that situation India reiterated that it would not use nukes first, whereas several of Pakistan's key figures in government and army repeatedly said they would not rule out a nuke strike first.

For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor

India tested their first nuclear weapon in 1974, at that time Pakistan had no nuclear weapons program. Following Indian program Pakistan started it's own and became nuclear capable by 1982 but never tested the weapons. India ruled by BJP conducted a nuclear test again and right after the test started moving it's military towards Pakistan to which Pakistan responded by conducting it's own nuclear tests. Though both countries suffered economic sanctions but a large scale conventional war was averted, later in 1999 both countries had a border dispute which fortunately never converted into full scale war. So yes nuclear weapons act as deterrent for countries with hostile enemies, that's what prevented US and Russia from jumping into full scale war.

Now about the doctrine for not using weapons first, a piece of fine printed paper with great comprehension means nothing when you are losing a war and guarantees of international community is nothing but a lie as we have all seen their role in Ukrainian crisis.

I think every country including India has every right to fulfill their needs by any possible legal means and should take necessary measures to protect their sovereignty.

FullM3taL: You say that nuclear weapons are a deterrent agaist nuclear war but you just stated that it was the US and other countries who put pressure on Pakistan, that pressure was the deterrent, NOT the nuclear weapons. By your logic, EVERY country in the world should have nuclear weapons, because they are a deterrent agaist using them?

Main objective of having a nuclear tie-up with japan is of economic value rather than military. India itself has distinguished its civil and military nuclear reactors with the indo-us nuclear deal of 2005,where the civilian nuclear power has come under inspection embargo. With a huge import bill of oil and gas to sustain its economy, which is of strategic concern with due fiscal strain, India needs the E of energy and for the moment nuclear seems the most vital option with India’s growing obligations to international treaties regarding climate change and carbon emission control.

nuclear weapons have been a curse to the world ever since they were invented in the 1940's, they've been keeping the world in fear.

But no world wars since 1945!

But Japan wants explicit Indian guarantees not to conduct nuclear tests and more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities to ensure that spent fuel is not diverted to make bombs.

At this point Japan should be diverting its own fuel to make bombs...

India or Bharat, having a history of billions of years has seen the ups and downs of the world. This oldest culture still exists for a very strong reason; its value system and the rich Hinduism culture. India believes in world peace, not just India's peace. The Hindu mantra/chant 'Loka samastha sukhino bhavanthu' is the best example. India is never going to initiate a nuclear weapon unless and until India is attacked by nuclear weapon. If wanted, India could have eliminated Pakistan from the world map. But India will not do that for a reason. In the coming years, what we need is peace not the wars. The reason is simple to understand for an educated man.