The United States and democracy go hand in hand. Most would be surprised to hear that the United States does not even have the world's largest democracy. That is India's claim to fame. For the U.S., this is a good and a bad thing. It is good to have a corresponding government with another internationally important nation. However, this also poses a threat of a strong rival nation. A rival in the sense that the U.S. likes its role as the world's superpower, and it wants to keep it. The U.S. does this by keeping regional powers such as India from challenging that role. This is not reason alone for the U.S. to fear though. The reason that may cause fear is India's nuclear capabilities. That fear is strong enough to cause the U.S. to take an interest in Indian nuclear development.
[...] The Asian nations are more likely to acquire and to deploy nuclear weapons in response to this assumed authority of the West. This is because the Asian nations believe that the West views them as inferior, and the Asian nations feel the need to prove that they are not. India will need to abandon this cultural view of the West in order to acclimate the support of the U.S. For a more comprehensive look at the relationship between the U.S. [...]
[...] Attacks ensued against the troops, and the conflict escalated to the point of the Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee pledged to send troops into Pakistan.[17] The significance of this instance is the danger evoked by two nuclear powers in conflict with one another. The riff that already exists between India and Pakistan based on border disputes could easily escalate to nuclear war. India has nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from threats such as these. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, India believes that they too need nuclear weapons to ensure bargaining power. [...]
[...] has recognized this by responding to Indian nuclear development by guiding and aiding India in the same direction as the U.S. Bibliography Basrar, Rajesh M. Minimum Deterrence and India's Nuclear Security. Stanford, California: Stanford UP Sagan, Scott D., and Kenneth N. Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons : a Debate Renewed. New York: Norton Basrar, Rajesh M. "Nuclear Weapons and Indian Strategic Culture." Journal of Peace Research 38 (2001): 181-198. JSTOR Sept Sagan, Scott D. "The Perils of Proliferation in South Asia." Asian Survey 41 (2001): 1064-1086. [...]
[...] is in a position to influence Indian nuclear weapons for mutual benefit.[2] The Indian government has shown the Bush administration support in order to further their own nuclear capabilities.[3] This works for the U.S. in that it allows them to mold India's nuclear capabilities into whatever seems most fit. It also works against the U.S. because it can potentially elevate India to the U.S. level of nuclear capability. This approach is in lieu of preventive measures against India. Preventive wars were avoided during the Cold War against Russia in order to prevent all out war.[4] The thought of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons does not outweigh the resulting backlash. [...]
[...] It is absolutely in American interest to know where Indian nuclear weapons stand. This aspect of world policing is better defined as being the world's watchdog. The U.S. is monitoring the situation in order to maintain stability. This watchdog role is to prevent and to predict when the need for world police measures arrives. In addition to the watchdog role, the U.S. has also taken hands on approach that still does not cross into the intrusive world police role. By sharing nuclear technology, the U.S. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
