Chapter 32: PM Debate: Geopolitics - 1
"Will India get Nuclear Bomb? If yes, how much has the work progressed?"
An USAian journalist asked the first question, since foreign journalists were allowed to ask questions in this section.
Nehru started answering.
"India will be developing Nuclear technology. But, only for energy purposes. In the future, India will require huge amounts of energy, which coal alone can't fulfill. We will develop various hydro-power plants too.
And even if India does get Nuclear bomb, she will never use it in war, unless it is used on us."
Now, it was Satyankar's turn to answer.
"I believe the same thing as Nehru ji."
In reality though, Homi Bhabha and his team has been working on the bomb secretly, directly under only Satyankar. All the scientists have been provided the same level of security as the PM, and instructed not to leave the country due to assassination risks.
India's intelligence agency has been able to secure some amount of uranium from the future Congo by smuggling, who is being helped to gain freedom from Belgium.
India has the largest Thorium reserves, but with the technology right now, Uranium or Plutonium is needed to begin the chain reaction. After some nuclear bombs are developed, the focus will shift on developing a technology for using Thorium only to harness nuclear energy.
With active support of the PM, and continuous threat of UK or a gulf country attacking, the development is much faster than the original timeline, where the government itself wasn't interested in developing bomb until China developed it.
In 18 months, India will get its nuclear bomb. And of course, this isn't something that needs to be told to the world right now.
"Anyway, is UK developing a nuclear bomb? The world will be in absolute danger if it does so, given that invading other countries is second nature to it. I heard from my intelligence chief that it is planning to bomb Iran because it is protesting against its control over their oil, which would make all of the people of Iran rich."
But, Satyankar didn't let the opportunity to throw UK under the bus and bomb it, to fan the flames of the Iranian revolution.
"I have no idea, Mr Prime Minister."
The reporter denied any knowledge about the matter.
"Really?"
Satyankar just shrugged off, knowing that everyone knows that there is no way UK will not develop nuclear bomb.
Honestly, asking countries whether they are trying to develop nuclear bomb is stupid. Everyone knows that every country, big or small, will try to develop it.
For the next question, every foreign journalist raised their hands, including UK. But, it was obviously ignored for the last, and another one was given chance.
A journalist from USSR asked the next question.
"In the Asian Union, the initial permanent members were decided as India, China, Japan and Indonesia. For the next three permanent members, it was left to the future. USSR has applied for the permanent membership, but Japan blocked it.
As an Asian power, isn't it strange that USSR is not included? Doesn't this sound similar to what happened to India in the UN? What's your take on it?"
First of all, Japan, which is more or less a puppet of USA in foreign policy, wouldn't allow USSR to enter such a group, since it will start dominating it. While forming the group, even the US President advised Satyankar against include USSR.
Moreover, Indonesia didn't want communists to gain more power. Indonesia is very similar to India, even in Geopolitics. To avoid wars and tensions, it follows a non-aligned policy, leaning a bit towards USA, and fears a communist revolution, since it is much easier to happen with a poor population.
And China, hasn't joined itself due to Tibet, so it's not like it will care about whether USSR joins as a permanent member or not.
"The Asian Union was created with the goal of peace and stability in Asia. Whatever economic and social goals there may be, the main cause for us to come together is so that it reduces chances of military coup in the new governments, and prevent wars in Asia.
India and China were included as permanent members due to history and population obviously. When our countries combined controlled more than half of the world's wealth, it is outrageous that we aren't included in the UN's permanent membership.
Japan became a permanent member due to its recent power, as shown in the WW2, and its expertise in infrastructure that we need.
Indonesia was added because it has been a very important country throughout history. A huge percentage of oceanic trade, I don't know the exact figures, but atleast around 50% of the shipments pass through or near it. Plus, it has the third most population in Asia, and fourth in the world.
As for USSR, it is both in Asia and Europe. It can be a part of NATO, something like a European Union, and even Asian Union. So, I understand your frustration that it wasn't added as a founding member.
But, as I mentioned earlier, this isn't a military alliance. It is an alliance to protect ourselves. We have different motivations and concerns too. We want to remove colonialism from Asia. Japan has different motivations and concerns. Indonesia has different motivations and concerns. China has different motivations and concerns, that's why it hasn't joined yet.
Reaching a consensus is very difficult between different countries. Even if we are allied together for a better future, we don't agree with everything. I will give you an example. Just recently, I pushed for stopping the use of CFCs because it Cl cation breaks down Ozone and causes a chain reaction, which will cause the Ozone Layer to deplete.
But, I am a theorist. I have very rarely proved them, though they all came out true. Just like with Teflon pans causing poisoning, my this theory hasn't been proved yet.
HFC is more expensive to make, so the ban wasn't approved.
When we were in talks of its establishment, its not like we didn't discuss USSR's inclusion as a founding permanent member. We also considered Iran, we also considered Thailand.
But, we could only agree with the four countries for now collectively. We will get three more permanent members, and even more after we have gotten the first seven.
In the voting that happened recently, India agreed to consider USSR. Sadly, not all members could reach the same conclusion. Half of Korea is still under USSR's control, which also was an argument against USSR."
"So why not make it democratic, without any veto powers? Isn't it hypocritical to keep the same system as UN, when India itself criticised it? Afterall, India came with the initial idea."
"It's simple, really. Not all countries are equal. And not all countries have intentions of peace. Because a Mosair Reforms started in India, much like the Protestant reforms, we would have been attacked by Arabian countries if not for Jews being hated more than a new sect of Muslims, that aren't even recognised as muslims by them and are banned from Hajj.
And, there are more Arab countries than we have our neighbours. While India doesn't have theocratic ambitions, they have. And giving more power to theocratic countries in an international forum for peace and stability is of no point.
That is just the example. While we want a peaceful Asia, it must not be at the cost of India. It's the same with other permanent members.
A democracy is doomed to fail, and be in civil war unless its citizens know what is important in reality, and what policies effect them how. If democracy was such a good thing, would USSR have a communist government?"
"But, we are democracy."
The reporter said.
Weekly Power Status
-- Power
Ranking 
-- Power
stone