NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Towards an unwinnable      war The cost of      confrontation Trial by the media Unworthy selections

The nuclear possibility

At the time of the Hiroshima attack, only the United States was in possession of the weapons. The nuclear bomb was developed in a race against time. At the time it was thought that Germany, which was in possession of the technology, might develop the weapon ahead of the Allies. After the war, a large number of German scientists were transported, both to the Soviet Union and the West, where they were instrumental in further development of the weapons technology. By 1949, the Soviet Union had its own bomb.

During the next 50 years both the United States and the Soviet Union perfected more sophisticated and increasingly lethal nuclear weapons and better and quicker delivery systems. At the height of the Cold War the United States had stockpiled over 12,000 warheads while the Soviet Union matched this with 7,000 of their own. In fact, each side had, and even now possesses, enough warheads to destroy each other many times over.

Although the bomb was never used, certain documents now reveal that both the US and the Soviet Union came pretty close to doing so. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each contemplated the use of nuclear weapons. Leonid Brezhnev also thought of using the bomb against China. But in each case it was against a non-nuclear power, and in each case better sense prevailed.

In 1998, India, soon to be followed by Pakistan, exploded its own nuclear devices, thus joining the select club of nuclear weapon states. Today both are on the threshold of their fourth war and the main question facing the world is whether any conflict between the two countries will result in an all-out nuclear war.

The principal problem when coming to any conclusion regarding the nature of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is the absence of much data about the two countries. From information made public from time to time or extrapolating from some scientific data, a few bits and pieces are available. But a large part of the jigsaw puzzle is still missing from both sides. Thus, in the absence of any concrete evidence, much of what the experts tell us is based on conjecture, personal prejudice or even wishful thinking.

This much is known. India's nuclear arsenal is plutonium-based while that of Pakistan makes use of uranium. Both claim to have in their possession thermonuclear weapons, the so-called hydrogen bomb, whose lethal power is many times more than the old atomic bomb. Both have demonstrated their ability to launch long- and medium-range missiles and have conducted tests of these missiles. Both sides also possess the ability to deliver the weapons by aircraft but as yet are not believed to have a sea-launched version.

But this still leaves some large gaps in information. What, for example, are the weapon yields? What is the accuracy of the delivery systems? And, finally, what are the numbers we are talking about? No one has any definite answers to these questions.

According to a number of experts who make a study of these matters, Pakistan is believed to have anywhere from 20 and 50 warheads while the number on the Indian side is said to be more than 200. They are thought to be of the 1-megaton variety (about 50 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Both India and Pakistan have missiles, which can reach the major cities and industrial and population centres of the other. But how accurate these missiles are and whether the countries have perfected the art of mounting nuclear warheads on them is anybody's guess. But India has in the past demonstrated that it can develop intricate communications satellites, mount them on rockets and place them in orbit. The problem of fitting missiles with nuclear warheads should not be too intricate to these scientists.

Should a nuclear exchange develop, there are some extremely lucrative targets available to the two countries. Apart, of course, from the two capitals, there are the major ports and principal financial centres of Karachi and Mumbai. Both are the most populous cities of their respective countries, apart also from being major ports. Mumbai is India's largest port. Any damage to the port and its subsequent closure can have a major impact on the Indian economy. Another lucrative target is the nearby Bombay High oil platforms, which contribute a major part to India's oil production.

What will be the effect of a 1-megaton nuclear bomb dropped on Mumbai? Hiroshima was a city of about 200,000 when it took the bomb in 1945, and not as densely packed as Mumbai, which has a population today of around 12 million, about 60 times more. Moreover, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only of 20 kiloton. Even so, the total casualties in Hiroshima were about 140,000. Extrapolating from that, the immediate casualties in Mumbai are expected to be over 1 million, while another 2 million will suffer the consequences of an attack. Physically, the port of Mumbai will be out of action for over a year.

With such unimaginable consequences, no wonder the bomb has never been used for the past 57 years. India has already declared its intention not to use the weapon for pre-emption or for a first strike. Pakistan has declined to make such an announcement and has reserved its options.

So will a conventional war between India and Pakistan lead to an all-out nuclear exchange? A number of senior officers believe that the nuclear weapons will never be used. Such belief, however, makes a mockery of the nuclear deterrence theory. The bomb can only be a deterrent if one believes that it can be used in certain circumstances. Of course, the decision to use the weapon will not be taken lightly and it may be used only in the last extremity. But the entire idea of developing a nuclear capability is to be able to use it, if need occurs.

There is the further and real danger of nuclear weapons or even one bomb falling into the hands of extremists or militants. People capable of planning and executing an attack on the World Trade Centre are certainly capable of mounting such an operation.

Many in India and Pakistan had hopes that the development of nuclear weapons would reduce the chances of conventional warfare between the two countries. It was also expected that eventually it would lead to the reduction of both conventional forces and nuclear weapons. Both these expectations have failed to materialise. In fact the two are closer to war today than before and there is real danger of a nuclear exchange between them.

The only way the threat of a nuclear war between the neighbours will recede will be with the reduction, control and capping, if not total elimination, of such weapons on both sides.

ALSO READ:
Terrorism in J&K: The complete coverage

Admiral (retd) J G Nadkarni