Nukes are nukes, after all!


Friendly Fire

Khalid Saleem

WE have every right to wonder as to why must our ‘strategic ally’ feel the urge to raise an alarm every now and then about the security of our nukes. After all, we are not unique. There are several others that are overt and/or covert nuclear states. There may be some others that may fit in the ‘twilight zone’. The breakup of the Soviet Union left several loose ends. Although the powers that be did their damnedest to tie up several of these loose ends; yet one can never be certain about these matters. Why does one not, then, hear about doubts about the security of the nukes of these twilight zone countries? Why, then, point fingers at us and us alone? After all, nukes are nukes; they are hardly footballs or Oscar statuettes that can be spirited away in the dead of the night. Chaps, who have passed through the horrible intricacies of the manufacture of these wretched things, surely must know a thing or two about how to keep the thingumies secure. And yet our own friends – strategic allies to boot – not only refuse to give up their misgivings but also add to the confusion. Or, is there more to this campaign than meets the eye?
It leaves one wondering if it was for this day that the Pakistani nation had opted to go nuclear. Leader after leader over the past several years before the “bomb” was actually exploded had made loaded assertions. To top it all, determination was expressed once that the nation was ‘prepared to eat grass’, in its quest to achieve this end. The pity is that it is always the common man who gets the short end of the stick. There is a lot of difference, for instance, between a ‘popular’ leader announcing the nation’s readiness to eat grass and for the populace to actually go ahead and do it (eat grass, that is!). One nagging question that presents itself is: why would the Pakistani nation sacrifice its all merely to be the proud possessor of the “bomb”? After all, so many countries are doing very well without the privilege. The reason one can latch on to is the need for the ever-elusive ‘security’. It has been argued by the pro-nuke lobby that the “bomb” was an essential step towards giving the nation a much-needed sense of security. Whether or not this argument holds water is open to question, though.
In order to add substance to the argument in favour of going nuclear, the concept of ‘strategic balance’ and ‘deterrence’ has been advanced with devastating effect. The cry for maintenance of the ‘strategic balance’ in the subcontinent was not only advanced at home but also became the common mantra to be chanted by our diplomats as far a-field as New York, Brussels, Beijing and Tokyo. The fact that very few took us seriously did not appear to have discouraged our advocates and/or policy makers. The chorus was, in due course, taken up by our very own pseudo-intellectual crowd who used up several gallons of ink to further the argument that the explosion and the resulting ‘bomb’ had in fact assured our security against the threat from the east. The argument – such as it was – went something like this: since we possessed the ‘bomb’, our enemy would now not dare to threaten us. The matter was thus conveniently reduced to a simple linear equation without the encumbrance of annoying variables.
Those who had argued in favour of the explosion went wild with delight. Those who had taken the decision ‘to go ahead’ basked in the glory of the moment until the awful truth dawned on them. Nuclear weapons, it soon became clear, were akin to a double-edged sword. Whatever clout they afforded was more than counterbalanced by the weight of responsibility that hung over the shoulders of those responsible for their security. The joy of having ‘joined the nuclear club’ brought with it an atmosphere at the same time of a certain awe and intimidation.
One thing that needs must be recognised is that the ‘use’ of a nuclear weapon per se in today’s world can under no circumstances be even contemplated. One may go a step further and aver that the ‘use’ of the nukes was effectively cut off after the US adventures at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not the “use” but the “threat to use” nuclear weapons that formed the basis of the strategic chess game between the then Superpowers during the period of the Cold War. In order to make this argument effective, therefore, the “right of first use” had to be asserted.
It would appear now that the time of reckoning is upon us. Through the signing of the ‘civil nuclear pact’ the United States ensured that India had thereby been, to all intent and purpose, taken out of the sub-continental strategic equation. Pakistan was left open to be dealt with on a separate plane. The ‘security of the nukes’ game that is being played at the expense of Pakistan may well be intended to cancel out whatever strategic advantage this country had ever hoped to squeeze out of its nuclear muscle. Yet, various ambassadors of this blessed land to the USA are reported to have averred that our relations with the US are ‘more friendly and better than in the past’. And ambassadors are honourable persons! If the gentle reader has emerged from reading the above narrative with a boggled mind, one can only express ‘understanding’ and offer one’s sympathy. Nonetheless, it may not be entirely out of order to aver that it may be time to subject our strategic doctrines to a fresh and in-depth appraisal. Who knows we may be in for a surprise!
— The writer is a former ambassador and former assistant secretary general of OIC.

Share this post

    scroll to top