Not Deterrence but Conscience is Dead

Columnist Dr S M RAHMAN  questions whether the countries demanding signing of CTBT have the moral right to do so.

Nuclear bomb is the creation of the scientific community, who defied the sacrosanct principle laid down by the father of modern science — Francis Bacon — who had rightly admonished that the scientists consider what are the true ends of knowledge and that they seek it not either for pleasure of the mind or for contention...but for the benefit and use of life... that may in some degree subdue and overcome the necessities and miseries of humanity.1 Alas! This was not to be. The nuclear genie was out of the bottle. How to put it back is the moral dilemma. It is indeed paradoxical that those who conveniently forgot humanity, and did not listen to the advice given by Einstein and Bertrand Russell — the conscientious objectors — who had vehemently appealed: ‘remember your humanity’ are now repenting the Frankstein they created.

Those who were instrumental in breaking nuclear virginity, and facilitate the birth of the Monster, were surreptitiously seeking political power. As Rotblat mentions: “The nuclear age emerged as the creation of scientists, but it went sour on them from the very beginning. In total disregard of the basic tenets of science — openness and universality — the new age was conceived in secrecy and usurped, even before birth, by one state in order to gain political dominance.”2 That state was America, which debased science — a pinnacle of creativity, which should have served humanity for its happiness and well-being, to become a dreadful symbol of death and destruction. All this for insatiable lust for power. Scientists’ guilt is overwhelming. This is what Pugwash Movement is all about. Those very scientists who were associated with Manhattan Project, more appropriately — Man-killing Project — are the most bitter critics of the ‘bomb’.

Scientists, essentially being human beings, have good reasons to lament. In the first place, they were made to believe that the arch-rival — Germany — was about to make bomb, and that this weapon in the hand of a maniac like Hitler would be a precursor of doomsday for the world. The implicit message was “do-or-die”. Naturally, the fear tranquillized the conscience. The truth, however, was totally different. The German scientists had abandoned the nuclear programme as early as 1942, much before the Manhattan Project got underway. Another bluff that the bomb creators were fed with was that the nuclear weapon would never be used, and that it was only a deterrent against Hitler. But was it? The power-seekers, used the bomb as soon as it was created, except for the fact that the guineapigs were the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The macabre tragedy let loose on humanity, was rationalized on a deliberate distortion. Winston Churchill, the wily British Prime Minister had hypothesized that to quell the Japanese resistance, man by man ... might well require the loss of a million American lives and half that number of British or more.3 Notwithstanding some rational estimates of probable casualties not beyond the range of 25,000 to 46,000, such calculations were indeed unwarranted as the Japanese were militarily defeated before the atomic bomb was manufactured. Facts have come to light that the most callous of all American Presidents —Truman — deliberately delayed the negotiation for Japan’s surrender just to be able to buy time so that the dreadful bomb’s production could be expedited and tested in a sort of experimental laboratory comprising Japanese population —Asiatic community of non-Anglo-Saxon breed. It has amply been testified that for winning war, USA did not have to drop atomic bombs. Churchill made it very explicit: “It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell”.4 Even, the then Supreme Allied Commander — Dwight Eisenhover — in his post- war confessional statement, and perhaps as atonement for sin, had said: “I voiced ... my grave misgivings, first on the basic of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping of the bomb was completely unnecessary,  and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion, by the use of a weapon, whose employment was, I thought no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives”.5 Admiral Leahy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was even more bitter. “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. The use of their barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. In being the first to use it we ... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age. I was not taught to make war in that fashion”.6

The question is that why did Truman indulge in the most atrocious savagery ever committed in human history. It was not done in a fit of lunacy but was a very calculated act and Japan was the target as revealed by the head of the Manhattan Project, General Groves: “The target is and was always expected to be Japan”.7 But the irony is that neither Germany nor Japan was the real target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy was conceived not to end the Second World War, but to prepare for the Cold War, otherwise Russia would not be “manageable”. In order to defeat communism, ‘atom bomb’, was a functional imperative, atleast that was what the western mind was fed with. Perhaps a similar ideological reason must have prevailed among the Warsaw group of nations. In nutshell, atomic bomb was essentially a political weapon from very beginning and continues to be so. Without mass scale slaughter of human beings, deterrence effect could not be demonstrated. 

There is something sinister about the atom bomb, right from the very outset. Deceit, bluff and distortions led its entry into military arsenal. After the end of bipolar world and a very enviable position of “unipolarity” that USA has attained, it is not ready to relinquish it, nor ratify the CTBT. But all diplomatic, economic and coercive pressures are against some “states of concern” like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Libya and Algeria are not of immediate concern as they do not have the requisite skill and competence to produce bomb, even though they are potential aspirants. Perhaps, Egypt could become a problematic nuclear country if politically destabilized and hard liners gain power. The threat has further compounded by the fact that the nuclear countries are also engaged in developing delivery systems, and progressively enhancing their range. There is nothing, which was not foreseen. It was expected that nuclear weapons would proliferate and that USA would not remain the nuclear overlord of the world. Science and technology, thrive on human creative abilities, which are not circumscribed by the physical boundaries of countries or visa requirements. It is this ‘globalness’ of knowledge, which resulted in the emergence of five wielders of nuclear power, but the nuclear club could not be restricted only to five. Now India and Pakistan even though not technically recognized, but for all intent and purposes, they are de facto nuclear states. The seventh one — Israel — is not a nuclear outcast, the way Pakistan is being penalized through sanctions and economic hardships for common people through IMF conditionalities. The so-called ‘pressures’ on India are only ritualistic in view of its new role as strategic partner of USA in the region to contain China’s growing power in regional and global affairs.

The whole NPT regime comes into serious questioning due to the double standards being adhered to, for instance, supporting Israel’s nuclear programme while condemning that of others. The most disturbing development is USA’s resolve to initiate National Missile Defence (NMD) defying the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. It is rationalized as a defence against nuclear weapons, but truly speaking it is for degrading the status of nuclear nations, particularly Russia and China. Metaphorically speaking, this is in order to establish itself as the only dinosaur, in the nuclear Jurassic Park — a typical pecking order paradigm. This is fraught with the most dangerous consequences for arms control and denuclearization. Russia will sooner or later augment its missile programme. So will China and the chain reaction will bring in India and Pakistan into the missile race.

The idea is being floated that deterrence is a moribund concept, and does not serve the purpose for which it came into existence. It is again a ploy, to sustain the nuclear hegemony of the five member club. This aspect has been brought into focus by Karl-Heinz Kamp. Talking of nuclear hysteria, he says: “throughout the decade, since the end of the Soviet Union, NATO has approached the question of its nuclear future in a ‘don’t rock the boat’ approach, which means stating the relevance of nuclear weapons for Alliance’s Security without, taking too much care for a cohesive and up-to-date reasoning.  Hence, NATO’s new strategic concept simply states that nuclear weapons will continue to fulfil an essential role be ensuring uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the nature of the Allies response to military aggression”.8

The demise of deterrence, spearheaded by ‘abolitionist lobby’, is more wishful than real. Karl-Heinz Kamp maintains: “Nuclear weapons increase the political options of a country significantly, particularly in crisis situations offensively or even aggressively used, they extend the leverage of a country to force non-nuclear opinions to patterns frequently called “preemptive compliance. In turn, nuclear weapons reduce the options of other countries against a nuclear power — it is hardly possible to bring total defeat to a nuclear armed country. To illustrate this point, one might imagine, what would have happened in 1991 or 1999 had Iraq or the Serbian leadership possessed a small number of nuclear warheads. Most likely, neither the second ‘Gulf War nor NATO’ military intervention in Kosovo had taken place.”9

When Germany, showed enthusiasm to promote the “no first use” of nuclear weapons, Washington reacted rather sharply and with a tinge of contempt that “attempt to undermine nuclear deterrence, came from a country that had benefited most from the American nuclear umbrella during the decades of the Cold War”.10 This only establishes that there is an element of Machiavellianism in the whole deterrence issue. For the 5-club member, deterrence is to be maintained without being vocal about it. In other words, what is good for the nuclear gander is no good for the nuclear geese. The Nuclear Emperor, unlike the contention of Robert Green,11 is not wearing the proverbial garment that makes him naked. In fact, he is heavily clothed more than what global security climate necessitates. It is only the smaller nuclear nations who are made to believe that they are ‘naked’ despite their deterrence.

USA’s defiance of ABM treaty, puts all international agreements and consensus in jeopardy, including NPT. By the same logic even Magna Carta could be questioned, if ethical issues become irrelevant over time. The new entrant in the Nuclear Club — India — is exhibiting   exuberance by formulating grandiose nuclear doctrines, which have contributed to the destabilization of the region. Jaswant Singh, an eloquent advocate of nuclear deterrence value, in his book “Defending India” says: “How then, to reconcile with an objective global reality that as these weapons do have a deterrent value, some are the owners of this value, others not”.12 He opts for the first category. Pakistan’s position is totally different. No doubt it is in the nuclear club, yet psychological out of it, for the reason that it seeks no power and international clout, but maintains a minimum deterrence, absolutely necessary for survival with honour and dignity. It has exercised voluntary moratorium on enrichment of uranium anything above what was absolutely necessary, and this it did without any pressure from outside. It adheres to the objectives of CTBT, without signing it. Its restrain to sign it at present, is based on the need to first assess, which way the Indian nuclear camel sits. It is not opposed to signing CTBT, but it waits to determine the desired response to India’s formalized nuclear doctrine. Deterrent cannot be absolute. It is always relative to what is to be deterred. Pakistan is India specific and nothing beyond it.

The anti-nuclear lobby which is proliferating and is quite vocal in Pakistan, must concentrate on highlighting the moral and ethical dimensions for evoking global conscience which is a martyr to power propensity. Debunking of deterrence is useless intellectual pursuit. Though, presently the pace of nuclear proliferation in at a relatively slower speed, there is a marked development towards renuclearization, particularly in Russia. As Karl Kamp states: we are presently facing the reality of renuclearization in international relations ... there are clear signs that Russian military elite intent to base its future military strategy much more on nuclear forces as a compensation for diminishing capabilities”.13 This particularly is due to the fact that shrinking military budgets, increasing military disintegration and the decreasing conventional fighting power can only be overweighed by a stronger reliance on Russia’s nuclear posture.14

India is caught up in the nuclear spree and is heading towards over nuclearization. What then should Pakistan do? Would not the surrender of deterrence amount to committing geopolitical harakari? Late Z.A. Bhutto very perceptively said: “If Pakistan restricts or suspends her nuclear programme, it would not only enable India to blackmail Pakistan with her nuclear advantage, but would impose a crippling limitation on the development of Pakistan’s science and technology”.15 The so-called peddlers of South Asian peace must look for the root of the nuclear malady and not its symptoms.

“Nuclearism”, says Lifton represents a terrible irony that only human beings could create: in our terror before the weapons and the fear and futurelessness they generate, we embrace those very potential agents of our annihilation and seek from them endless life power16. “Remember your humanity” is the only choice to free the world from the menace of nuclear weapons.

Notes and References