Does Pakistan Need The Nuclear Bomb?

Pakistan is one of seven countries in the world which possesses a nuclear bomb. It is the only Muslim country with the knowledge and technology to manufacture these weapons. This is a source of pride for virtually every Pakistani. It is accepted as a given that the country needs the nuclear bomb for its survival. It is this assumption that I have come to question.

Like most of my countrymen, I think it is a great achievement that Pakistan developed the nuclear bomb and an associated advanced delivery system on its own. It speaks volumes of the talent and expertise that is available in the country today. What I have come to question is the need to actually possess a nuclear device.

Why should Pakistan have a nuclear bomb? Whenever I ask this question, the visceral answer is that we need it in order to defend ourselves against India. Without the bomb, India will destroy Pakistan. Let's examine this issue in a little more detail.

Advocates of the bomb argue that this is necessary for self defense. The question is self defense against whom? Pakistan borders four countries - China, India, Iran and Afghanistan. The country has had strong relationship with China and there is a negligible probability of an active war against that country. Iran is highly unlikely to attack Pakistan. In the Iranian calculation, Pakistan does not pose a credible threat to its integrity. The same is true on the Pakistani side. The Pakistan army is fully capable of countering whatever indigenous forces that Afghanistan can muster. In any case, the main supply route to Afghanistan runs through Pakistan and in the highly unlikely event of a conventional war with that country, all Pakistan needs to do is cut off this supply line and Afghanistan's ability to wage war will be significantly curtailed. This leaves India. Partition left a legacy of mistrust on both sides. The Indian side initially expected Pakistan to collapse of its own accord while the Pakistani side was convinced that India wanted to reabsorb the country. This legacy has ebbed and flowed over the years. A series of measures taken over time has cut off the two populations from each other. As a result, most people in the two countries developed distorted views of the other side. The distortion is greater on the Indian side. Pakistanis have two sources of access to events and people in India. First, a large number of people have relatives living on the other side; second, Bollywood movies are hugely popular in the country. Of course, Bollywood provides a fairly distorted view of the life in India, nevertheless there is some indication of what Indian life and culture are.

So there is a legacy of mistrust which is bolstered by a lack of large scale contact between the general populations. In this context, nuclear weapons are deemed to have essential survival value for Pakistan against perceived aggressive designs of India. But is this really true? The Indian economy is much larger than the Pakistani economy and has been growing at a faster pace over a longer period of time. As a result, it is better able to support the burden of a large military. Not only that, it is better able to keep its armed forces equipped with the latest equipment. It is conceded that in a conventional war, Pakistan cannot hope to win. The best it can do is force a draw and even that is not sustainable because of a weaker economy. In this context, it is asserted that nuclear weapons can be used if survival is threatened. My question is what happens the day after? Lets say there is a nuclear exchange. India and Pakistan lob nuclear tipped missiles at each other. There is no guarantee that either side will restrict itself to military targets. Both parties would also want to hot economic targets. However, industrial capacity is usually situated in urban centers. The result would be the incineration of major cities on both sides with massive loss of life. What will happen to the survivors of such an exchange. Pakistan cannot survive a nuclear exchange intact. Its physical and logistics infrastructure will be shattered. It will need to take care of a large number of radiation poisoned survivors with a shattered resource base. There will be the threat of mass starvation. It will be a humanitarian and economic disaster. (Interestingly, Lahore/Amritser will almost certainly not suffer a nuclear attack. Any attack on either city will devastate the other one).

Given that Pakistan cannot hope to win a conventional war and a nuclear exchange will result in a shattered state, the question is what is the utility of nuclear weapons to the country? Now consider a scenario in which India has nuclear weapons while Pakistan does not. Again a conventional war is unwinnable. (This does not mean that Pakistan will be a roll over. In this case, there will be enormous pressure on India not to resort to nuclear war against a non-nuclear opponent. The end result is the same but at the end of the day, international pressure will force a draw and the state will emerge relatively intact. So it seems to me that there is a case for Pakistan to actually give up its nuclear weapons. This does not mean that Pakistan should not pursue nuclear technology for electricity production. I just don't see a compelling case for nuclear weapons.

Holocaust

A lot has been written about the Holocaust since the end of World War 2. My thoughts on this topic were triggered by a news report on Iran publishing a books which seeks to debunk the number of people killed. For some time now, writings about the holocaust have essentially degenerated into a numbers game. The officially accepted figure is 6 million. Debunkers try to point out that reaching this figure would entail a high death rate from the first day of the war right till the last day of the war. Obviously that did not happen. It took time to build the infrastructure and the logistics network necessary to transport and process large number of people. I feel that a numbers game really misses the lesson of the Holocaust.

First what are the undisputed facts? What is undisputed is that a regime created a network of camps designed to kill people in the most efficient manner possible. The victims were chosen on the basis of their belonging to a particular religious group. Thus an accident of birth was enough to condemn a large group of people to death. Why is this undisputed? The reason is that the physical infrastructure exists; a large number of prisoners were discovered in the camp and the belongings of former prisoners who had been killed were also present. The principle involved was that people were worthy of condemnation and death because they were born into a certain religious group. the individual actions of these people were irrelevant.

I feel that the principle on which the holocaust camps were operated upon; the philosophy behind the incarceration and death of individuals is what needs to be condemned. Such a principle is dangerous because it condemns people not because of what they do but because of who they are. A principle like this is dangerously open to abuse. It is the principle which matters and not debate about numbers. It really doesn't matter if 6,000 people were killed like this or 6,000,000. The death of even 1 person based on a principle like this is one death too many.

Terrorism Redux

Terrorism (noun): The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(Source: American Heritage Dictionary)

Terrorism is constantly in the news nowadays. Sometimes it seems as if the world is being overrun by anarchic (read terrorist) forces that are beyond the control of any individual or any government. Terrorism is increasingly resembling an elemental force of nature which strikes at random, without warning, without mercy and for obscure reasons that seem to hark back to medieval times.

The American Heritage Dictionary quoted above (definition taken from Dictionary.com) defines terrorism in a fashion that implies that only the nation state has a legitimate monopoly on violence. Indeed, this has been one of the defining characteristic of all empires and nations down the ages. Without a monopoly on violence, no empire/kingdom/nation can survive for long. Once the state loses the monopoly on violence, then internal disorder starts to overwhelm its smooth functioning. This is a major reason why terrorism is so strongly denounced by all governments no matter their ideology.

Terrorism often seems to be a uniquely modern and since 9/11 a specifically Muslim phenomenon. This impression is reinforced for a large number of people by the many pseudo-experts who pontificate on the genetic and cultural shortcomings of Muslims as a people and Islam as a religion. However, terrorism is by no means a modern phenomenon. A large number of actions can be identified throughout history which fulfill the definition of terrorism quoted above. Many of these actions are usually not viewed as terrorist activities. Some examples:

The Revolt of the 13 Colonies Against the British
The American revolution is generally viewed by Americans as the start of a grand experiment in modern democratic values. In the traditional history, this is portrayed as a significant, history changing event which served to put the old European monarchies with their class distinctions on notice that a new fresh force has erupted in the world. A force whose values were decreed to be universal and eternal; values which will sweep the world and move the old world into a new egalitarian phase. Yet this brave new world (no pun on Aldous Huxley intended) started out with an action that fulfills the definition of terrorism. The Boston Tea Party was an unlawful use of force against property which had the intention of forcing the Imperial government to repeal the tax on tea which the British parliament using its legitimate authority had imposed. (It is somewhat ironic that tea is not a popular drink in the US today having long been supplanted by coffee). After the British tried to restore order (from their point of view), there were acts of resistance and violence by many (but not all) colonists. Again we have unlawful use of force against a legitimate authority trying to restore order. So the American revolution was rooted in terrorism. Since history is written and disseminated by the victors, this view of those events is never propagated.

The Russian Revolution
A seminal event of the 20th century, the Russian revolution eventually resulted in the polarization of the world into two hostile camps. Europe was effectively partitioned into two parts for more than 40 years. At least once, the world came to the brink of destruction through nuclear war. This event too started from acts of terrorism. The Bolsheviks (who became the Communists) came to power through acts of violence against the legitimate government which had come to power after the last Tsar Nicholas II abdicated.

The Indian Mutiny of 1857
This is an interesting case. I have deliberately included this because the act of terrorism was not committed by the obvious candidate. For those who do not know, a short background to the Indian mutiny of 1857. The British East India Company was formed in 1600 and given a charter by the British government granting it a trading monopoly with respects to the East Indies (what is now called South Asia and South East Asia). In 1617, the company was given trading rights by the Mughal Empire which ruled most of India at the time. The company's activities were restricted to trading throughout the 1600s. In the next century, with the gradual erosion of Mughal authority, the company's activities started to extend beyond mere trading. At that time, other European powers were also trying to establish themselves exclusively in India; the most prominent European threat being the French. The French challenge was successfully seen off and in 1757, the company acquired territorial control over Bengal after the Battle of Plassey. By 1857, the company had extended its rule over virtually all of India. In that year, the company's native army revolted for a variety of reasons which cannot be enumerated here because of lack of space. The revolt was in the name of the Mughal emperor who at that time was a pensioner of the company. After the revolt was rather brutally put down, the Mughal emperor was put on trial for rebelling against the authority of the company.

Now, in this particular case, there was a legitimate authority and there was an act of violence against that authority. The interesting point is that the legitimate authority was not the East India Company as most people would assume. The company ruled its territory in the name of the Emperor. Its legitimacy stemmed from the permission granted by the Mughal emperor. When the native army revolted in the name of the emperor and were not repudiated by him, the company's legitimacy was legally revoked. Thus the company in restoring its rule was engaged in an act of violence against the legitimate authority (in this case the Mughal emperor). Therefore the company's actions were those of a terrorist!

As these examples show, many actions through history which traditionally are not seen as acts of terrorism easily fit the dictionary definition of the same. Another point about the dictionary definition of terrorism: These are acts of violence which are deemed to be unlawful by a state. Same acts of violence perpetrated by agents of the state (police, paramilitary forces, army etc.) are not deemed to be acts of terrorism.

The most pertinent question to ask about terrorism is why do such acts occur in the first place? What compels people to take their own lives and the lives of others in a fairly dramatic fashion? Although the ostensible causes of terrorism can be many, ultimately nearly all such acts have at their base the exercise of power.

A Thought on Capitalism

There is a fatal flaw in the basic capitalist model specially as it is practiced by the Anglo-American world. The flaw is that capitalism assumes infinite growth. The problem is that the world has finite resources. As a result, over the very long term, the capitalist model as it has evolved is inherently unstable.

Whenever I have postulated this thesis, I have encountered strong opposition. The immediate answer relates to the cycle of growth and recession. Ever since the industrial revolution, all capitalist economies have experienced regular periods of boom and bust. In nearly every boom period, the enabling factor has been either technological change or the discovery of a major source of a mineral resource that is in great demand. Examples in the former category are railways in the 19th century, automobiles in the early 20th, electricity in the early to mid 20th and internet in the late 20th century. Examples in the latter category are the California gold rush in the mid 19th century, the Alaska gold rush in the late 19th century, the Philadelphia oil boom of the mid 19th century and the Middle East oil boom in the mid 20th century.

The effects of technological change tends to leave economies and people better off than before. Railroads, to take an example, dramatically reduced the cost of transportation from coastal areas to interior areas. They helped form a uniform internal market in countries. by linking interior rural areas to major urban areas that are usually concentrated on the coastal areas. They helped to avert major famines by allowing rapid transportation of food items to affected areas from surplus areas. Similarly electricity made all of us better off by giving us superior lighting thereby extending the amount of time for work and leisure. Electricity also allowed the development of labor saving devices specially in the household arena for tasks which previously were done by hand. Electricity also allowed the development of refrigeration which vastly expanded the availability of food items at a reasonable cost and of course the computer and the Internet would not have been possible without electricity.

All of this is upheld to summarily dismiss my contention. Let me state at this point that I acknowledge the reality of boom and bust cycles in economies. I also know that companies like people have a lifecycle. Unlike people, a mature company has the option of reinventing itself when it finds its growth slowing thereby kicking off a new growth phase and a renewed lifecycle. But therein lies the nub of the problem. Notice an unspoken assumption. A mature company can reinvent itself to kickstart a new growth phase. The assumption here is that growth is necessary for a company to survive. What does it mean for a company to grow? There are two commonly held grounds for company growth. One is year on year increase in sales. The other is year on year increase in profits. Normally the two go together. However there is a possibility of increasing profits in the face of stagnating sales. This can be done by increasing prices and/or aggressively cutting costs. But again notice that the emphasis is on increase.

The question then arises, how can a company keep increasing sales year after year indefinitely? This can only happen if the economy (or economies) in which the company operates grows indefinitely. This in turn means that there has to be an indefinite increase in the amount of goods and services that the economy produces. That in turn implies that end consumers have to consume ever increasing quantities of goods and services. We must keep in mind that all economic activity is ultimately geared towards end consumption. For example, take a rather specialized product like tobacco paper which is used in cigarettes. There are only a few companies in the world which make paper that satisfies the requirements of tobacco companies. But why would tobacco companies need to buy this kind of paper? The reason is that they need it to make cigarettes which are sold to end consumers. Take another example: the material used in manufacturing a Boeing (or Airbus) aircraft. This is ultimately sourced from mining companies. Why would Boeing want this material? Because it is needed to make the aircraft. But why make the aircraft? In order to sell to airlines. But why would airlines want to buy these aircraft? The reason is that there is a demand to transport people (and cargo) from point A to point B in a fast, safe, convenient fashion. So the end result is that there is a consumer demand which needs to be met which makes possible this entire chain. The point of quoting these examples (and there are countless examples that can be similarly quoted) was to show that ultimately there has to be end consumption and this has to grow indefinitely over a long period of time for the current capitalist paradigm to work.

Now, let me return to my basic thesis and the objections to it. As I mentioned earlier, my thesis is that capitalism (in its current form) is inherently flawed because it assumes infinite growth in a world of finite resources.

The first objection is that all capitalist economies experience boom and bust cycles and in the latter, there is a contraction in the output of goods and services in an economy and so therefore the thesis is flawed. I agree that there are boom and bust cycles. However, during a normal course of the cycle, the contraction is not sufficient to permanently depress economic growth. It is assumed that once the economy recovers, it will recover lost ground and forge on ahead. Consequently, when the next bust comes along, it will be from a higher level than the start of the previous bust. Thus over time, the economy will continue to grow.

The second objection is that organizations operating in a capitalist economy have definite lifecycles. There is a continuous process of birth, growth, maturity and death (or sometimes re-birth) of companies. The response to this objection is that I have never made any claims regarding a single company. My claim is about a system. Even if we take an individual company, there are many assumptions that are made. It is assumed that the company will exist forever. No assumption is made regarding the nature of an individual company's business. A company can start in one area and end up in a completely different area within a short time. But it is assumed that during the company's existence, it will show ever increasing sales and profits. Expand this assumption for the totality of companies existing in an economy and you have a situation where it is assumed that the output of goods and services in an economy will grow indefinitely over time. Contractions will occur but each contraction will occur from a higher base than the previous one and the lost ground will be more than covered in the subsequent recovery. As I also discussed above, this continuous expansion over time can only occur if the ever increasing output of goods and services are ultimately consumed.

Now, this assumption runs into the reality of finite resources. Modern civilization rests on a base of industrial agriculture and industrial scale mining. The real problem stems from the mining leg. We need to extract various resources from the ground for our civilization to function. These resources are non-renewable. A ton of aluminium extracted today cannot be extracted tomorrow. It is gone forever. Similarly a barrel of oil extracted today is gone forever. It doesn't help that existing financial models actually encourage maximum extraction for immediate gain. This is because of the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) which essentially states that a dollar today is more valuable than the same dollar tomorrow because of the effects of inflation. There is therefore a basic incompatibility between the inherent assumption of capitalism (infinite growth over time) and the reality of finite resources. Thus the current capitalist system is flawed and ultimately doomed.

Final Point: An immediate objection to this conflict is the effect of technological change. This is a very important factor in mitigating the reality of finite resources. Better extraction and waste reclamation technologies allow us to stretch available resources. But that's the point. The available resources are fixed. They are not increasing. At some point, no improvement in extraction and waste reclamation technologies will enable us to extract any more.

Ruminations of the War on Terror

The American War on Terror has inspired much writing on the so-called Islamic terrorism problem. In the name of securing global peace, the world has been turned upside down and the lives of hundreds of innocent people severely affected. Along the way, there have been some high profile captures but the vast majority caught in the dragnet have been innocents or at the very most minor characters who had clearly been brainwashed into believing a distorted version of religion. The upshot of all this effort and money has been a vast increase in insecurity not just for the developing (mostly Muslim) countries bit also in the US itself. A massive culture of fear has been cultivated which has resulted in the Americans allowing a massive erosion of their civil liberties. It is not as if the integrity of the country is threatened. While Al-Qaeda can hit isolated and even high profile targets, there is no way that it can seriously affect the US in a fashion that the country's existence would be threatened.

So if the integrity of the US is not threatened and right now there is no country in the world which can pose a serious military threat to it, why are the Americans so scared that they are willing to see their constitution mangled and their civil liberties erode? Perhaps it is because they have not yet registered what a true erosion of civil liberties can be like. Till now, the life of the average American has remained unchanged. But what is clear now is that the US is in the process of turning itself into a police state. Right now, the steel fist is clothed in a velvet glove as far as the home population is concerned. But the danger is that at some point in the future, the steel fist can emerge. If arbitrary powers are granted to someone, then at some point they will be exercised. Remember that Hitler was democratically elected. It was only after they came to power democratically did the Nazi regime turn Germany into a police state. How? By burning down the parliament building and then spreading fears of a communist takeover. The question often asked is why did a cultured nation like Germany allow itself to be turned into a state where civil liberties were squelched and undesirables as defined by the state extrerminated. I think the answer is that initially the life of the average German was not affected. By the time the average German was materially affected, there was a pervasive atmosphere of fear which translated into a willingness to look the other way at blatant acts of violence.

Right now the war on terror has largely affected countries that physically are very far from the US and not strong enough to pose a direct threat. Even Iran, the current bogeyman, can pose an indirect threat; the manner of that threat is such that it will drag the global economy into a recession (infact it will probably be a depression akin to the Great Depression). So once again, given that the average Joe American is far more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist strike, why is he (and Jane American) so scared?

Writer's Block

It has been a long time since I posted my last entry. I developed a form of writer's block in that I was unable to think of any topic. Time however to get back into the thick of writing!