Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mohan Marette who wrote (1245)	6/1/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: Rational	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12475

Times, London June 2 1998 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 'Double standards' on nuclear tests From Professor Joseph Rotblat, FRS Sir, Your leader ("Nuclear illogic", May 30; see also letters, June 1) starts off correctly by pointing out the dangerous fallacy in assuming that in the wake of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests deterrence will now operate to prevent war. You should have gone a step further and said that the same applies to the five "official" nuclear weapon states. The general condemnation of India and Pakistan is fully justified, but we need to be reminded that neither of them was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and their tests were not illegal under international law. On the other hand, all the five nuclear powers did sign the NPT and - under Article VI - they are committed to nuclear disarmament. This commitment was reaffirmed in 1995, when the NPT was extended indefinitely, but their actual policies are in contradiction to it. They adamantly refuse even to put nuclear disarmament on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. A document leaked last winter in the United States - PDD-60 (Presidential Decision Directive) to the US military high command - seems to indicate that the US Government would consider the retention of nuclear weapons as essential as a deterrent against nuclear attack, but also against an attack with any kind of weapon; in other words, it would permit "first use" of nuclear weapons. As long as the "top table" of world powers persist in the belief that nuclear weapons are needed for security it will be impossible to deny such security to other nations that really feel insecure. We cannot go on tolerating double standards. The radical way to solve the nuclear issue is to eliminate nuclear weapons by a multinational agreement through mutual, balanced and verifiable disarmament measures. This is the declared policy of the British Government, and the best response to the current crisis would be for Britain to take the initiative towards the implementation of that policy by persuading the other nuclear powers to agree to discuss these matters at the Conference on Disarmament or some other forum. Yours faithfully, J. ROTBLAT, 8 Asmara Road, NW2 3ST. June 1. From Major-General H. M. Tillotson Sir, Apart from credibility given to the 1950s' threat of a four-minute warning, which was never more than a doomsday scenario of the Soviet Union attempting a pre-emptive "defensive" nuclear strike, your leader provides the most succinct and convincing summary that I have read in forty years' interest in this grim subject. Your consequent recommendations regarding international policy towards India and Pakistan fall short of the understanding and logic apparent in your introduction. Economic sanctions imposed on Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein hurt their populations but have had only marginal impact on their leaders' domestic or foreign policies. Unlike these dictators, the Governments of India and Pakistan rely on the whim of notoriously volatile electorates. These electorates have - innocently or naively perhaps - fired up the dangerous situation we now see developing in the great sub-continent. Economic sanctions, which would hurt the poor and weaken the Governments, are the option of despair. Rather let the nuclear powers soberly invite the leaders of India and Pakistan to the high table of technological and strategic maturity, there to be brought to see the stern responsibilities their rivalries have brought about. They may regard each other as enemies but both are our friends. Yours faithfully, MICHAEL TILLOTSON, The Hall, Pitt House, Chudleigh Knighton, Devon TQ13 0EL. June 1. From Mr Bruce Kent Sir, Who do we think we are? Last December in the United Nations General Assembly 116 countries voted in favour of starting nuclear weapon abolition negotiations in 1998. Amongst them were China, India and Pakistan. Twenty-six countries voted against even starting such negotiations. They included the United States, Britain and most of their Nato allies. Perhaps we should stop the hypocrisy and learn the obvious lesson. We either start on the road that leads to nuclear weapon abolition or we face general nuclear proliferation. Yours faithfully, BRUCE KENT (Vice-President), Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, 162 Holloway Road, N7 8DQ. May 31.