It is often said that proliferation begets further proliferation. There is a theoretical debate at the international arena about how nuclear proliferation should be explained as well as whether future nuclear proliferation can be predicted. Nuclear proliferation is a concern for pessimists and anti-nuclear activists while it is sound for deterrence theorists. The father of neo-realism as well the deterrence theorist, Kenneth Waltz argued that spread of few nuclear weapons will bring stability and peace between the rival states. Waltz argues that “WSD are the only means to deter the United States”. Also, Steven Miller argues that WSD are vital to deter American intervention. This is the reason for many states going nuclear for stability or security. It is also believed that states acquired nuclear warheads for diplomatic advantages. No doubt, the psychological, economic and domestic considerations are the main elements of nuclear proliferation. In contrast, proliferation pessimists argue that nuclear proliferation makes the world a more unsafe place because it would lead to preventive military strikes, crisis instability, and accidental nuclear detonations.
Since the discovery and unravelling of nuclear proliferation on the international arena, optimists and pessimists are debating whether it is a fault of nuclear states which are intentionally collaborating with other states in the name of peaceful utilization of nuclear energy that eventually resulted into spread of nuclear weapons or it is just a culpability of nuclear scientists who are working independently to gain profit by helping states to acquire nuclear warheads. Interestingly, thousands of scientists are working in nuclear laboratories at various places. Recently, Hassan Abbas’s book, Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb displays more insight on how a nuclear scientist can play a leading role in nuclear proliferation.
In past, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard warned the United States President, Roosevelt about the nuclear developments in Nazi Germany and recommended him to start a research on nuclear fission for military purposes. Einstein was aware of Hitler’s anguish over Jews and he chose nuclear bomb as security against Nazi Germany. From this angle, a bad decision and poor examination would also lead to nuclear proliferation. Though Germany has the capability to acquire nukes, it refrained from doing so.
Abbas argues that it is more likely that the state also have a fundamental role in nuclear proliferation by providing enough freedom to nuclear scientists to do whatever they like. For Instance, Abdul Qadir Khan was sole in charge of Khan Research Laboratory in Pakistan. Moreover, the state might often allow its scientists to help other states directly to acquire a nuclear bomb if the recipient is a close friend whose interests are identical.
There are numerous studies on nuclear proliferation that recommended the nuclear states to safeguard their nuclear warheads from falling into wrong hands. Ironically, when states themselves are involving in nuclear proliferation, it is likely that many new states will join the nuclear club. Nowadays, nuclear weapons are declared as a battlefield weapon rather than as an element of national security. Some states even treated nuclear weapons as an object that might be someday used to annihilate the bulk of non-combatants.
The deterrence optimists like Herman Kahn asked for missile defence systems, shelters, shells and evacuations in case deterrence fails. The deterrence theorists are not sure about the rationality of the state actors which is why more precious resources are utilized to defend the state from incoming missiles of enemy states through missile defence systems. However, military officials of the United States are worried about the newly supersonic missiles of China that have an ability to break down the robust missile defence system of the United States.
Waltz’s nuclear deterrence theory ignores rationality because he argued that fear of few nuclear weapons is the main element for the success of deterrence. I object to his argument on the ground because rationality alone is the fundamental element of nuclear deterrence. For instance, India and Pakistan have exchanged nuclear threats many times during Kargil war and other crisis. Indian military officer was even ready to detonate an atomic bomb in Siachen glacier to drown Pakistan to settle the Kashmir issue forever. Similarly, Mirza Aslam Beg was keen to nuke India in the 1990s.
Surprisingly, an unofficial nuclear doctrine of Pakistan talks about the nuclear strike to India in case India tries to strangle Pakistan’s economy and destabilizes Pakistan’s domestic political system. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is completely blurry and offensive. Nuclear expert, Vipin Narang is afraid about the no-first-use policy of India because of the fuzzy nuclear posture of Pakistan. Narang’s opinion was seriously taken by the then Indian defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, who questioned India’s no-first-use nuclear policy. Undoubtedly, India’s nuclear doctrine is also blurry and offensive because it revised its nuclear doctrine in 2003 from no-first use to first use against any biological and chemical attack to India.
I do not find any logic of nuclear deterrence in avoiding wars or de-escalating tensions in the South Asian region. After the nuclear weapons acquisition, Pakistan behaved more aggressively than before. Thus, nuclear weapons acquisition might provoke such states to fight a war under the nuclear shadow because a nuclear war would be costly and destructive than conventional. The Kargil war of 1999 is one such example, Pakistan thought it was better to settle the Kashmir dispute by its nuclear weapons capability. However, it was India which first made overt references to nuclear weapons in the Kashmir conflict after its nuclear explosions in 1998. A single argument/opinion or article from an elite scholar would also encourage nuclear proliferation like Waltz’s nuclear deterrence theory. Waltz specially mentioned Pakistan that its nuclear warheads will stop it from arms race with India. However, both are busy in advancing and improving their nuclear warheads. India alone conducted seventeen missile tests in 2017.
The tussle between Saudi Arabia and Iran is another concern for pessimists who argued that Saudi Arabia may go nuclear in case Iran crossed the nuclear Rubicon. Iran possesses nuclear-capable missiles and its indigenous Bavar 373 air defence system is at its final stage. In past, Pakistan through Abdul Qadir Khan’s network helped Iran in nuclear development and in present times, Saudi Arabia might ask Pakistan for the same. For Pakistan, nuclear proliferation might solve the many problems of the Islamic world. Abdul Qadir Khan’s zeal to transfer nuclear know how to Muslim states like Libya and Iran reflected his anguish with the West particularly the United States in order to erode its monopoly over nuclear warheads. In past, a nuclear collaboration of several states like US-UK, France-Israel, Israel-South Africa, USSR-China happened because of identical interests.
One can easily understand why the United States is backing the nuclear commerce with India. John Mearsheimer in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics argues that the United States will pass bucks to India to fulfil its strategic interests to counter China. The United States collaborated with India for joint production and development of military-related technology. India needs fuel for its nuclear reactors to accelerate its nuclear weapons strength to deter China on behalf of the United States. The identical interests in past have proliferated the nuclear weapons and it will do in the future as well.
Another factor for nuclear proliferation is profit. It is a confusing question why nuclear industry offers nuclear assistance. The nuclear industries are selling nuclear equipment to recipient states for capital accumulation. It hardly matters to nuclear suppliers whether the recipient state is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or not. For instance, the various studies on Abdul Qadir Khan’s illicit nuclear network revealed that profit was the main reason for the transfer of nuclear technology and equipment’s to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Astonishingly, the state like India which is outside of the NPT got the waiver of Nuclear Supplier Group for nuclear commerce in 2008 after the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in 2005. In return, India is going to pay the countless amount of money to nuclear suppliers. As per the 2015 reports, the six French nuclear reactors (each with the capacity 1650 MW) will be installed at Jaitapur, Maharashtra (India) which will involve the capital cost of $ 11.5 billion. The so-called peaceful nuclear cooperation has eventually culminated into more acquisition of deadly nuclear weapons.
Nuclear proliferation happened not only by abstract and objective systemic factors, individual leaders and their decisions also actively played an important role in spreading of nuclear warheads rightly argued by K. P. O’ Reilly in his article “Leaders’ Perception and Nuclear Proliferation: A Political Psychological Approach to Proliferation”. Homi Bhabha, the main architect of India’s nuclear programme was interested to go nuclear before the Indo-Sino border war of 1962. The claim of security threat of China to India as an important factor for its nuclear tests in 1998 is fishy. India’s nuclear policy is studied by many experts like Scott Sagan, Itty Abraham, George Perkovich, Sumit Ganguly, S. Paul Kapur, Achin Vanaik, Kanti Bajpai, M. V. Ramana, and Zafar Iqbal Cheema. Majority of nuclear experts argued that India went nuclear for power and status. Some argued that political determinism was the main factor that encouraged politicians to blast the desert in Rajasthan in May 1998. Atul Bihari Vajpayee was desperately searching for excuses to went nuclear to save his image and political career. From this perspective, many new states might go nuclear for the same factors in future.
George Perkovich in his piece “Nuclear Proliferation” argues that India and Pakistan face internal threats rather than an external threat to their security. Nuclear weapons might hardly be beneficial for security to both states. The rampant corruption, economic dysfunction, sectarian conflicts, general absence of civic virtue, and misgovernment are more real threats to India and Pakistan. Political pressure drove Pakistan to acquire nuclear warheads and India’s BJP was dreaming a bomb for prestige before 1974. Bal Thackery claimed after the 1998 atomic tests that “we are not eunuchs anymore”. From Thackery’s statement, it seems that all Indians were eunuchs before May 1998. I hardly understand the connection between nuclear weapons and eunuchs. Alan Turning was known for his mastery in computers and was gay. Thus, a particular organization’s (like RSS in India) interest in bombs might further proliferate nuclear weapons. Also, South Africa went nuclear in the 1970s because of Prime Minister Balthazar J. Vorster’s self-interest in nukes.
As far as Israel is concerned, it is assumed that the security was the main reason that Israel joined the nuclear club, however, it did not acknowledge its nuclear weapon strength officially. The recent article by Leonard Weiss published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists revealed that Israel intentionally violated the United States law and the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) be carried out its nuclear test. In 1963, Israel signed the treaty along with India and Pakistan. Surprisingly, the United States did not pressure Israel to sign the NPT. A friendly relationship is also one of the significant factors for nuclear proliferation.
North Korea case might also inspire new states to acquire nuclear weapons which have tussle mostly with the United States. The United States attacked Iraq and Afghanistan because both states were non-nuclear. Experts are of the view that the United States had to think hundred times before invading North Korea because Kim Jong Un might trigger the nuclear button. The recent United States-North Korea crises did not culminate into a war. Many states might acknowledge Waltz’s nuclear deterrence theory and want few nuclear warheads to save themselves from the United States. However, there is a report of the upgrading of nuclear warheads of North Korea. Thus, few nuclear weapons for stability hardly attract states, the arms race will follow in order to dominate the other.
To sum up, the hypocrisy of the nuclear states has provided a boost to nuclear proliferation. Though several efforts for nuclear disarmament was initiated they were futile in nature. The NPT itself was flawed in many respects, that is why it failed to attract all states to sign and ratify it. Until the double standards from the nuclear states will remain on the table, nuclear disarmament is a distant dream. The nuclear myth makers/nuke speakers or scholars are equally responsible for nuclear proliferation. They provided an empirical study that nuclear weapon states are less likely to become involved in the full-scale war. Also, nuclear weapon states while facing non-nuclear state enjoyed the victory. The bad decision from scientists cannot be undermined too, atomic bombs don’t build themselves. The self-interest of leaders to acquire nuclear weapons has been proved also. In addition, there is a link between nuclear assistance, profit, and nuclear proliferation.
Finally, I quote the realist, Hans Morgenthau in relation to a nuclear arms race. ‘if the nuclear armaments race cannot be brought under control before any number of nations will have nuclear weapons, only a miracle will save mankind’.
Bio
Rameez Raja is an ICSSR fellow, pursuing Ph. D. at Department of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He specializes in India’s nuclear policy. His writings have previously appeared in many Journals, Magazines, Newspapers, and Blogs. Email ID: [email protected]