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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment