New
Delhi, 19 November 2002
Late
Gen K Sundarji once told K Subrahmanyam, (both of whom we consider
to be the architects of India's nuclear advancement), that the best
kept secret of India's Security Establishment was that there had
never been a Security Strategy! Times of India carried the piece,
but that state of affairs cannot continue in today's age of
globalisation and unstable 24 party Governments, where stances are
more personal than national.
We
suggest that if and when we get a CDS with courage, he must get
the three Chiefs on board and get the Government to pen a Security
and Military Strategy, so that policy may be formulated. The last
time one was penned was by Raksha Mantri Bansi Lal, but no one had
the courage to sign it.
Here
in USA they openly talk of disconnect between the three services in
India on Nuclear aspirations, with the Air Force pitching for the
deterrent. The doctrine seems unclear and to maintain deterrence it
must be announced. Pakistan has announced that it will use the
Nuclear Bomb if its vital interests are threatened and specified
these very threats.
A
book just released by Mary Anne Weaver titled “’Pakistan in the
Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan’ explains this in a full chapter.
No wonder India was careful throughout the Kargil war. The nuclear
arsenal was sheathed but now we have Agni-I and the IAF has 250 km
Prithvi missiles on the ready –– calling for a warhead.
Yet
even today, India's nuclear doctrine is called a DRAFT and
though ambiguity is a part of deterrence, lack of strategy can be
suicidal and expensive. President Abdul Kalam recently stated that India
would use nuclear bombs if any one used them, against us. This
shows confidence by the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, that India
can retaliate appropriately as our strategy. India should announce
it and the Service Chief responsible for the retaliatory force
should echo operational confidence so India's nuclear stance is in
cadence. Dr Kalam is knowledgeable on India's Nuclear and
Biological and Chemical arsenal and privy to the secrets and we take
his words seriously and applaud him for a clear articulation at a
time when Bush calls them dangerous weapons of mass destruction
–– WMD. Happily we see that India is accepted as a responsible de
facto nuclear state by the Western world, and this gives us a
good place in the sun.
We
have attempted to contribute to strategic thinking and we have been
updating our viewers about whatever we learn from the media and
the experts about the Nuclear Status of India and Pakistan in some
detail. We have some five pieces in our What's Hot section and had
predicted that Pakistan's nuclear bomb was a time bomb and
could fall into wrong hands.
This
is now being taken seriously with Times of India repeating the big
story of Pakistan's bomb ticking away. In USA, we have now been
able to discuss the subject briefly with experts like Stephen Cohen
and George Perkovich, the two most knowledgeable Pundits on the sub
continent, who have written seminal books on the region. Cohen this
year released ‘Emerging India’ after spending some two months in
India and Perkovich 's book on ‘India's Nuclear History’
was the first comprehensive book on the subject, and widely quoted.
Then followed Ashley Tellis, writing for Rand, an armed forces
sponsored ‘think tank’, who showered praise on India's demated
and recessed nuclear policy –– just what USA had in the late
50s. Chingappa wrote a kiss and tell story and Bharat Karnad
had summed up nuclear issues in his book. Now comes the Bombshell.
USA
via Bush has reportedly stated that it has no contingency plans on
the Islamic nuke. The recent 'hoax', which appeared in Asia Times
about the terrorists being in possession of 3 bombs from Russia and
2 from Pakistan was rapidly effaced from the internet.
We know
every good Armed Force prepares a variety of contingency plans so
surely the Pentagon, Israel and India must have approached the
subject as a theoretical exercise at least? So we ask –– Is it
true that Bush called Seymour Hersh, who says USA has contingency
plans to hit Pakistan, a liar? But then, how does one explain
this enigmatic quote from the report given below.
In the
‘analysts' community’, speculation is rife that the seeming
abandon with which the Bush administration views Pakistan's
shenanigans suggests it already has a handle on the country's
nuclear assets. Where is this analysts' community? Does the US have
a handle or not? If so, when, if at all, will the handle be
pulled?
PAKISTAN's
NUCLEAR BOMB IS AN ISLAMIC TIME BOMB
Chidanand
Rajghatta
Times
News Network, Sunday,
November 17, 2002
President
Bush has denied reports that the United States has contingency plans
to neutralise Pakistan's nuclear assets.
The US president seemingly offered this assurance to Pakistan's
General Musharraf when the two met on the sidelines of the UN summit
this year, following the publication last December of an article in
the New Yorker magazine by investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh, saying the US and Israel had contingency plans to take out
Pakistan's nuclear warheads in the event of the country falling to
fundamentalists.
"Seymour
Hersh is a liar," Bush is quoted as telling Musharraf, in a Washington
Post article that previewed a forthcoming book by its Managing
Editor Bob Woodward about the war on terrorism in which the comment
is made. It is not clear from the article in what context Bush made
the remark and who raised the issue. But Bush evidently proffered
the assurance before reports saying US intelligence has evidence
that Pakistan provided nuclear know-how to North Korea till as
recently as three months back. In the New Yorker article,
Hersh, quoting unnamed intelligence officials, says the Pentagon has
developed contingency plans to work with an Israeli special
operations unit to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons if the country
became unstable.
"In
recent weeks, the administration has been reviewing and
"refreshing" its contingency plans. Such operations depend
on intelligence, however, and there is disagreement within the
administration about the quality of the CIA's data," Hersh
reported. "The American intelligence community cannot be sure,
for example, that it knows the precise whereabouts of every
Pakistani warhead –– or whether all the warheads that it has
found are real."
He
then quoted an official as saying Pakistan has some dummy locations,
and if the US–Israeli combine mounted an operation and failed to
clear all the nukes, then "the cat is out of the bag".
US
officials had scoffed at Hersh's report even at the time it was
published, but there was plenty of discussion –– in undertones
–– in the Government, think tanks and media circles about the
need to exfiltrate Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, especially
after reports of its top nuclear scientists having connection with
the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
The
issue has resurfaced in recent days following the episode involving
North Korea and the impending war on Iraq. In a critique of the Bush
administration's Iraq policy, New York Times editorialist
Nicholas Kristof on 16 Nov wrote, "After all, if it's
appropriate to carry out pre-emptive strikes on countries that
sponsor terrorism and secretly develop nuclear weapons, then we
could launch an invasion today –– on Pakistan."
But
Bush and other senior administration officials have continued to
insist that Pakistan has met the standards for being an ally in the
war on terrorism despite skepticism in many circles. In the
analysts' community, speculation is rife that the seeming abandon
with which the Bush administration views Pakistan's shenanigans
suggests it already has a handle on the country's nuclear assets.
Soon after the Hersh report, when Secretary of State Colin Powell
was asked about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, he said he
was confident that he (Musharraf) understands the importance of
ensuring that all elements of his nuclear programme are safe and
secure.
"And
he knows that if he needs any technical assistance in how to improve
that security level, we would be more than willing to help in any
way that we can," Powell added meaningfully.
Seymour
Hersh is a widely acclaimed investigative reporter who is the author
of a book on Israel's nuclear programme. But he gained notoriety in
India for calling former Prime Minister Morarji Desai a CIA agent,
an allegation he did not retract despite a lawsuit. In his New
Yorker piece, Hersh says some senior officials say they remain
confident that the intelligence community can do its job (of taking
out Pakistani nukes), despite the efforts of the Pakistani army to
mask its nuclear arsenal.
"We'd
be challenged to manage the problem, but there is contingency
planning for that possibility," he quotes a military adviser as
telling him. "We can't exclude the possibility that the
Pakistanis could make it harder for us to act on what we know, but
that's an operational detail. We're going to have to work harder to
get to it quickly. We still have some good access."
Shortly
before Hersh's article and soon after the 9/11 catastrophe, there
were several commentaries on the think tank circuit –– usually a
sign of the thinking within the administration –– calling for
greater accountability of Pakistan's nuclear assets because of the
danger of fundamentalists taking over.
Arguing
for contingencies, non-proliferation scholar Jon Wolfstal had said
that time that US plans "should include the ability to rapidly
deploy forces to Pakistan to find and regain control of any lost
nuclear materials and, only as a last option in a crisis, remove
them from Pakistan to a secure location.
"These
steps might seem extreme. Yet when faced with the real possibility
of losing control of nuclear weapons to the types of organisations
capable of the destruction seen on September 11, they could be
considered realistic and even prudent. The consequences of not being
prepared to act are too great for us to imagine, even with our new
ability to imagine the horrible," Wolfstal had maintained.
Disclaimer
Copyright
|