NPT Is As Good As Dead

labyrinth1 #12

`` World often tell us ( Pakistanis ) to sign CTBT , I say why should we ? Nukes gurantee`s Pakistan ( s ) stability .. anyone and let me repeat anyone who in Pakistan ever even thinks of signing anything which is against our nuclear intrest will be killed , not by mullah`s by moderate nationalists patriotic Pakistanis .. ``

I am going to say whether Pakistan should retain its nuclear arsenal or not.

Nukes will deter only open democracies like USA, India etc. Even those states are only deterred only to a point. A no to Colin Powell after Sep-11 would not prevent an American attack.

It won`t deter a Red Army from attacking Pakistan during the height of the cold war. Neither will it deter the current rulers of North Korea/Burma/Sudan etc especially if they acquire the means to attack Pakistan.

The real question is why do you need nukes for ? The better question to ask is what does Pakistan have that other countries covet ?

In the case of Pakistan the only purposes of nukes is to create mischief in Kashmir and Afghanistan and to cover up for the internal instability. Of course it helps to have nukes to blackmail a few hundred million dollars from the international community.

American pressure is putting an end to mischief in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

#12, you are entitled to imagine anything you choose to. However, here is the reality:

(1) It’s highly doubtful that Pakistan has control of its nukes, because of the simple logic that the state of Pakistan (at this time essentially its military institution) appears to have control of NOTHING (except perhaps the life and liberties of its citizens, for which it appears to hold only limited regard!)

(2) People who solve problems through killing are not “moderate” by any definition of the term! Also, “patriotism” has been called the last refuge of scoundrels for a very good reason – people who indulge in the type of braggadocio you exhibited often are the last people who will actually show up to fight ANYBODY! It may be difficult for you to understand, but there is a very genuine reason for the sadness many sober and intelligent Pakistanis feel (and we often see exhibited on this web site). In my mind, I see THOSE individuals as true patriots whose type ANY country would be blessed to have.

(3) The “stability” that you refer to is a BAD thing – it just means that the country is stuck and is likely to stay stuck. The idea is to get things moving, which requires getting out of the rut!

(4) Nukes do not make Pakistan stable in any way! The institution of army is basically holding it together by force, and they can do that up to a point only, with or without nukes. The only way to make it truly stable is to address, seriously address the underlying causes of the instability. Nukes also do not make Pakistan safer in any way from attack by India! If there were conditions for war, there could still be a war, as we saw almost happen in 2002! As far as whether nukes provide Pakistan any clout with a certain superpower – it’s not even funny!

(5) Building nukes takes resources that would have helped the very people you profess to care for so much (do you really?)

I don’t think real patriots talk like you do – perhaps an army brat might – except a mature one! Your interactor page says you are a student leader, maybe some day you will even graduate to become a full-fledged political leader, the kind the army treats with such contempt!!

World often tell us ( Pakistanis ) to sign CTBT , I say why should we ? Nukes gurantee`s Pakistan ( s ) stability .. anyone and let me repeat anyone who in Pakistan ever even thinks of signing anything which is against our nuclear intrest will be killed , not by mullah`s by moderate nationalists patriotic Pakistanis ..

kamath:

The population issue is important; nobody is under-rating it. However, it is of a different kind. Birth control methods are fairly common and people are using them. Indira Gandhi did not hesitate to go all the way to compulsory `nas bandi`, when push came to shove. Even the orthodox countries will adapt to birth control to check over-population. The Roman Catholic Church is under great pressure to endorse it. Many Muslim families are doing `family planning (birth control)` without making a big deal.

Instead of assigning the work of researching and writing an article on this issue, to me, why don`t you do it yourself? It might give you better insights and broaden your general outlook.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

You say,``..The human race might abolish itself by its own weaponry. ..``. You have taken in by this Ideas put forward by Western intellectuals, politicians etc., though there is some truth in that statement.

But have you ever thought of Population Bomb? It is already here. We will all be drowned and destroyed by it. You won`t feel the effect of it in your quiet and comfortable Detroit home.

If a nuke explodes, I won`t be worried. All will be over in a second!. Who cares. Tell me what makes you think humanity deserves to be preserved in this ever increasing miserable overcrowded, polluted world?

Here is an suggestion for you. Since you are a very thoughtful person , very rational, and possess admirable insights into human miseries and of course have lots of time on hand , I would like to see a good well researced column about dangers of `uncontrolled runaway population`!

Forget about NPT and CTBT. A good cup of tea would start any one going!

Dr. Gill, thanks!

There is a lot of substance in what you say, no doubt!

Unfortunately, as has been said countless times, power is highly addictive and countries or even individuals who willingly let go of it are rare indeed!

I do urge you to look also on the positive side – we have not had a nuclear war yet! In a weird way, the fact that the NPT or even the issue of proliferation is not very high at this time on any country’s agenda is precisely because of the awareness of the fears that led to the NPT in the first place – because at this time few people are really apprehensive of a nuclear war. People would be less sanguine had there been a serious danger, since on the inside, most people perhaps do agree with you a lot more than they would admit!

I really appreciate your sincere and heartfelt response. There is no doubt there are very few individuals like you, I wish there were more!

Please don’t be misled or discouraged by the some of the responses from the crowds at large. I have slowly come to realize that there are a lot of smart chowkees out there, but they usually keep quiet (which of course is the smart thing to do).

BeeJay:

Beejay:

I don’t know whether the world is safer now than in the 1950s. In 1950s, there were only two countries that had noclear weapons; now there are many. The modern nuclear weapons are much more lethal than those that existed in 1950s.
The NPT seems to be the only instrument available at present for checking further proliferation. The argument that NPT has largely been ineffective so far, therefore it is useless is wrong in my view. If it is ineffective at present, it can be empowered and made more effective gradually. NPT is better than no NPT.
It is the feeling of fear and insecurity which makes countries seek nuclear weapons. There has to be a feeling of trust among the major countries of the world. Undeniably, there will be wars in the foreseeable future. If some international stipulation can be introduced banning the use of nuclear weapons in the wars, that will be a good start. It can begin with the NPT member states. They should formally resolve not to use nuclear weapons against each other.
Despite the fact that such a resolution may remain weak in the beginning, such a resolution nonetheless should be formulated. The U.S. has set a very bad example by invading Iraq bypassing the U.N. If the big powers do not empower the U.N. and NPT, there is little hope of much improvement.
In my opinion, the US should sign the CTBT because if it doesn’t, how can it ask (persuade) countries like India and Pakistan to sign it and abide by it? The US has to inculcate trust in other countries. The good thing is that the nuclear weapons have not been used so far after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world should work to ensure that they will not be used in the future also. Fight your wars with the conventional weapons if you have to fight them.
I am not a politician, not even of the caliber of the chowk politicians. I might not have the insights that the others claim. But believe me, I am a concerned member of humanity. We should rise above our national levels and think of the whole human race. Our national problems are insignificant compared with the danger that the nuclear weapons pose for the human race.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Dr. Gill:

Nobody doubts your sincerity on this issue! The question is what EXACTLY should be done. The fact is the genie is not capable of being put back into the bottle. Leadership by example has a very limited place in geopolitics (the last instance was “panch-sheel” and the whole world knows what happened during the Indo-Chinese war of 1962, and that was conventional weapons only).

I have two questions for you.

1) Don’t you think that the world is a safer place now than during the 1950’s? (I am not asking in terms of the number of weapons – even one nuke used is one nuke used too many - but in terms of how well controlled the actual inventory is (especially for the U.S.) and the deterrence value that such overwhelming advantage the US enjoys creates for the minor nuclear powers (pretty much everybody else).)

2) What exactly is YOUR vision of how this thing should be worked out? In other words, who gives up what and when? (We won’t even get into why.)

Thanks.

Mr.Gill,
The last sentence has me all aflutter.You need to take a vacation and rid yourself of these morbid thoughts.Too many credit cards??.A high mortgage??.Trolls for children??.An annoying pudgy wife who`s overeating you to the poorhouse?.It`s okay.I don`t mean to pry into your affairs!.I can, though, offer you a glimpse of little paradise close to my town, one of india`s playgrounds, Goa.Since you`re a history buff, cut and paste and check out pics of Panaji.Maybe you should take a vacation there and rid your mind of all these morbid and serious thoughts you`re having.Enjoy!!!.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=4048846#post4048846

Sincerely,

cayenne

M Gill - two things: one, Israel is not an openly declared nuclear power. However, it is understood that it does have access to nukes but maintains a coy silence.

Two - I absolutely agree with you that nuke weaponry is an outstanding example of humanity`s bent for self-destruction. The problem is that no one trusts anyone enough to rid themselves of their arsenals. The US for eg, is experimenting with new and improved warheads that will simultaneously improve their nuke stock and update their efficacy while allowing them to significantly reduce their arsenal as per the Moscow treaty in which Putin and Bush decided to reduce their current stock by 2012.

As long as there are people who feel threatened by others and they have access to something as ruinous as nuke tech, its going to be tremendously hard for any of them to give it up without keeping one or two as reserves just in case one of the others is acting in bad faith. We are a specie that refuses to learn from the past - a quirk of an otherwise developed brain. maybe evolution is taking us towards a time and place where we can finally see that raining death by fire proves no point and wins no wars. I just hope that we dont arrive at that place and, in the words of one of my IR profs, ``find the world populated by a couple of Chinese and a few cockroaches``.

And i hope those two Chinese dont fight each other with sticks and stones as Einstein famously predicted when he said, ``I dont know what will be used in the Third World War but the Fourth will be fought with sticks and stones.``

Interactors:

I have produced an extract from the Einsten-Russell manifesto which Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein had prepared in the 1950s. NPT is the culmination of this manifesto and some other developments which took place as a consequence of the manifesto. The concerns expressed in this manifesto are real and should better not be politicized. The NPT is what needs to be enforced in earnest and honestly if the human race is to survive on this planet. Our generation has forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic bombs used in these cities were mini-nukes compared with the lethal powers of the modern weapons. I wrote this article with a great deal of seriousness. The nuclear powers should better start reducing their arsenals and new aspirants should refrain from going all the way to weapon making in the interest of collective survival. It is the duty of the world leaders not to politicize the NPT and work together to minimize the dangers of a nuclear holocaust. The extract is as follows:``The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed. It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration. Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert`s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy. Here, then, is the problem, which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. ....`` Those of you who have doubts about the NPT should better read the 1970 resolution of the NPT and the follow up resolutions of the review meetings. NPT is what we need. The nuclear member states should set a good example for the other members to follow.

Mohammad Gill

{The human race might abolish itself by its own weaponry.}

Mr Gill,
Nuclear weapons have guaranteed the peace in the World for the last 60 years. American Policy viz the NPT makes so much sense. If it is not USA, then who else is capable of leadiing the world in present day and time. Ours is not an Ideal World, despite all of the genocides and Wars fought during last 50 years, if it can be bench marked, ratio of Weapons available over number of people killed is very neglibile.

Imagine if Abdali, Chengez Khan and Aurengzeb had access to Nuclear Weapons, what would have happened then?

Countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India(to some degree) have made having WMD as their only means of survival, at the same time screwing their masses and denying them of basic necessities of life. India has made Economic strides in the last 10 years to come out of this minor league, Pakistan should also emulate India to progress Economically.

Countries/civilizations that are White, Judeo-Christian led masses(North America, Europe, Australlisa, South Africa etc) were the people who had the might to make these weapons, wheather Germans or Jews. Nobody else had either the technology or brain to make strides in Nuclear technology, hence they will control the ``haves-havenots``, it might sound very crude but this is the truth.

Indians and Pakistanis can beat their drums, but Amreeka will dictate what they want to. Democrats, Republicans both have very similar ideologies as it pertains to NPTs.

If you are expecting that USA will give up it`s WMD just because of some Secularists immigrants from Asia, you are sadly mistaken.

As far as Israel is concerned, it`s people have considerable influence in the American life and Politics. That is why, if you notice, American values are referred as Judeo-Christian society.

I am not saying that it is fair for Non-Nuclear countries to be denied WMDs. This can be compared to, when a Father stops the little immatured children from playing with Knives, meanwhile he still carries knife himself and uses it for correct reasons.

Moral of the Story:
Till other countries coming from non Western Culture side of the planet can prove that they can match Western values, they will be where they are beggin, stealing, borrowing things and trying to sound brave.

The confusion regarding NPT is more easily addressed by keeping in mind that NPT was always about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons (“spread” as in horizontally to a new country) and never designed to address the growth of nuclear weapons (“growth” as in adding vertically to stockpiles sitting in particular countries). The word “proliferation” was just ambiguous enough to be mistaken for either and to make NPT more marketable. In any case, many smaller nations got on the NPT bandwagon simply because (1) most of them had no realistic expectation of building such weapons anyway and (2) there were financial incentives (as well as disincentives) on the table (primarily from the U.S.) as well as a “feel good” benefit. There may have been 187 signatories, but those with clout would probably not exceed a couple of dozens. The “weaknesses” of NPT have always been well-known hence the reason countries like India considered it “discriminatory” and did not sign. Pakistan of course took its usual firm, consistent, moral and principled stand and accordingly – it copied India!

NPT, CTBT, and any such treaties won’t really address problems of the world unless the signatories retain good-faith. Human nature being what it is, even geopolitical negotiations for peace have the best chance of succeeding when conducted from a position of strength. The Bush administration, like a breath of fresh air (in my view), is at least honest and upfront about what it says and means (except perhaps earlier through Powell’s state department) and does not want to mess around with CTBT! Previous administrations did not really believe anything different, they just used to be more wishy-washy on the diplomatic front.

Israel is a “suspected” nuclear state, not a “declared” one.

Notes:

[The member nuclear states need to set example by retrenching their nuclear arsenals and abandoning their plans for developing further nuclear weapons before they can seriously hope to rein-in the other member states aspiring to go nuclear.]
[The situation is further complicated because the U.S. does not have moral authority to force Iran not going nuclear because it is planning to build mini-nukes of its own and is adamantly refusing to sign the CTBT.]
WHY? What has MORAL AUTHORITY got to do with geopolitics?

[The seeds of Iran’s nuclear ambitions were sown when Israel covertly became nuclear with the connivance of the U.S. The nuclear bombs then entered the Middle East which is a hazardous minefield for the whole world. The U.S. with the help of the other nuclear powers should have seriously tried to keep the Middle East free of nuclear weaponry.]
Same logic would have applied to South Asia. It did not fly there and won’t do it elsewhere.

[There are probably not many who can feel her pain.]
Yes, most people DO feel her pain! However, which is a better scenario for forestalling a nuclear holocaust – a handful of states with a secure stockpile under firm control of sane and representative governments or a bunch of unpredictable individuals (and groups) getting their hands on a few of these choice weapons – especially if these individuals or groups have no concept of democratic rule and even see “glory” in wholesale annihilation?

[The human race might abolish itself by its own weaponry.]
Probably not true (consider the magnitude involved). Plus, doesn’t the theory of evolution imply that some segments of the human race will adapt and survive no matter what?

The member nuclear states need to set example by retrenching their nuclear arsenals and abandoning their plans for developing further nuclear weapons before they can seriously hope to rein-in the other member states aspiring to go nuclear

Gill sahib, pigs will fly before this happens. Please wake up and smell the coffee in the real world and not the world of ivory-towered academia: NO country with nukes is going to give them up willingly and certainly not the Big Five you mention.

Realpolitik is all about might being right. Why do you think many countries are scrambling to try and go nuclear before Uncle Sam kicks their ass?