Sanjay M wrote:The fact is that any nuclear test in any location can be measured by seismic monitors around the world, and its yield deduced to reasonably accurate approximation. If you really want to be secretive, have the NoKoreans make it an undersea test. That'll limit the data the ChiComs can get out of it.
Sorry, but that's no argument at all. The North Koreans will not even be willing to host an Indian nuclear test by proxy. It does not afford them any advantages whatsoever to do so, weighed against the risk of alienating PRC. So the question of their making it "undersea" or "underground" is moot.
It doesn't matter if the South Koreans and Japanese were ticked off - their international clout is a drop in the bucket, compared to those who'd be upset over an Iranian nuclear test.
Plus the economies of SKorea and Japan are export-dependent, and they simply can't afford to cut themselves off from our market. They're all hoping to sell their small cars here.
KSA has more economic power projection against us than SKorea does.
South Korea is directly threatened, as is Japan, by further expansion of the North Korean nuclear arsenal; and that is what an Indian thermonuclear test will appear to be if conducted by proxy in North Korea.
You say Seoul and Tokyo are "export dependent" and can't afford to cut themselves off from our market... why do you think they'd target *our* market? You do realize that the whole point of testing by proxy is to establish plausible deniability for ourselves... right? Otherwise we could just test in Pokhran and face the music.
What will happen with any nuclear-weapons test in North Korea that the Chinese haven't privately vouched for in Seoul and Tokyo, is that there will be severe repercussions of economic shock in the Far East. That will precipitate an international crisis which is bound to affect us, even if we aren't directly sanctioned (again, the point of doing a proxy test is that we won't be directly sanctioned).
It is not in our interest to destabilize the Far East. Meanwhile the gulf and Middle East are already in danger of destabilization by circumstances beyond our control; if the US and Israel have their way on Iran it will most certainly be destabilized in any case. Far better for India to risk a proxy test in a region where we've already made contingency plans for destabilization.
Sanjay M wrote:The NKoreans are in a much more precarious position, and wouldn't be as likely to muck around with us, when they need a liferope.
China can't make Kim's regime fall - whether in a day or a month - not when the issue of succession is very thorny and sensitive. The last thing China would want is to see its NKorean buffer state collapse prematurely before its time, thus potentially bringing US troops upto the Chinese border.
You do realize that the North Koreans' need for a liferope, which comes from Beijing, is exactly what will make it untenable for them to cooperate with India on a nuclear test by proxy?
I am amused by the idea that China is helpless against Kim's regime. If any country could maneuver a military coup in Pyongyang by its chosen officers, it's China. The PLA-NoKo military ties go back even further, and run even deeper than the PLA-TSPA ones. All power in North Korea devolves from the military, and while the military is under Chinese control (easily managed since all its equipment and supplies are Chinese)... so is North Korea.
Also, I'd like to see (1) the US sending its troops into North Korea after the collapse of Kim's regime, given their present situation and sensitivity to the Chinese (2) South Korea and even Japan acquiescing to any such thing.
Sanjay M wrote:Sorry, but everything there is kept in very tight balance, which can't just be thrown away on a moment's notice, because of the heavy investment in keeping that balance.
As opposed to the lack of investment in keeping "balance" in the Middle East, which is still the source of most of the industrialized world's energy supplies?
Sanjay M wrote:The US has more options against Iran than against NKorea. There are more international backers for military action against Iran than against North Korea.
The US could pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a pinch, to free up the possibility of military strikes on Iran. But the US can't pull out of Japan and SKorea. That's a non-starter. The Americans there are like Atlas holding up the sky - if somebody tickles their arm-pits, they don't have a free hand to throw a punch back.
The US would be remarkably stupid to draw down in Iraq, or even Afghanistan, to "free up" the possibility of military strikes in Iran. It would open them up to rearguard actions by Iranian proxies in those very states. In effect, the US has no direct options against Iran at all other than airstrikes or missile strikes. The most it can hope for is to spur other nations to proxy war... but even the Saudis are too canny for that, having confined their proxy war against Iran to the territory of hapless Yemen.
Again, I'm talking about a situation where Iran has just apparently tested a 500kT thermonuclear device. Are the US and Israel going to know, let alone count on the fact that Iran was in possession of only one of those? For that matter, are Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or any of America's proxies going to take that chance? An Indian proxy test in Iran effectively ends the possibility of immediate US or Israeli action against Iran, and that is in fact one of the incentives for the Iranians to take us up on it.
Sanjay M wrote:Besides, the Iranians sit astride the oil jugular, and if any problems grow in their region, we'll only feel the fallout at the gas pump. The same can't be said of North Asia.
The thing is that problems will grow in that region no matter what we do or do not do.
If the US and Israel conduct military strikes on Iran, the oil jugular will be squeezed in any case and we will feel the ill effects while having lost the initiative and gotten nothing out of the situation. If KSA and maybe Pakistan are used to wage proxy war on Iran, again we gain nothing but only suffer.
As long as the waters are troubled the only thing it makes sense to do is fish in them, while we can. If in the process of "fishing" we not only benefit from conducting a thermonuclear test, but in fact decrease the likelihood of military attacks on Iran by giving them the appearance of having a nuclear deterrent. And this will only discourage the US and Israel from taking such actions against Iran as might precipitate an oil crisis.
Of course this whole scenario depends on our having a GOI with the foresight and courage to conduct a proxy test of a nuclear weapon at all.