Katha Pollitt and Andrew Sullivan
Entry 74:
Katha,
Why is everyone so upset about India's nuclear test? It seems to me India is a sovereign state, a relatively functioning democracy, and has every right to do whatever it wants to defend itself against possible enemies. Does anyone believe India would launch a pre-emptive strike? And why is its nuclear capacity more troublesome than, say, France's? The only difference is that India might have some genuine defence concerns and France is in it purely to posture as a great power. Or Russia's? The only difference is that India's democracy is decades old and Russia's is still nascent.
I guess the argument is that you have to stop somewhere. But why? If deterrence works, it doesn't really matter how many nukes you have, as long as they are regionally balanced. A nuclear India and Pakistan will lead to a far more peaceful subcontinent than a non-nuclear India and Pakistan. In a few cases (Israel comes to mind), I think it's even defensible to have a nuclear capacity even if your enemies don't, if they truly outnumber you, and have had no qualms in the past about trying to destroy you.
In other words, I think all this posturing is just that; a waste of US international prestige; a hangover of silly internationalism; and an affront to the sovereignty of many other states. Let a thousand nukes bloom, say I. And let regional nationalisms help stabilize the planet.
yours bristling with caffeine,
Andrew
Katha Pollitt is a columnist at The Nation. Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at the New Republic.