It is a convention of play writing that the appearance of a gun in Act I implies its use in Act II. Human beings, having once developed a weapon, have always found rationales for their use. Thus far there has never been a weapon devised by man that has not been used. Nuclear weapons, once demonstrated, have long been considered of such magnitude as to be impossible to use in a world in which more than one nation has the capacity. Mutual Assured Destruction worked, though there were several very close calls.
Now that North Korea has tested a second, apparently more successful, bomb, much of the World's attention is turning to the question of how to restrain rogue nations from proliferating and eventually using their weapons. Tom Barnett, who has been rather sanguine about an Iranian nuclear weapon and the prospects of proliferation leading to use, in the process of making one point, makes a quite different point:
ARTICLE: Nuclear Aims By Pakistan, India Prompt U.S. Concern, By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, Washington Post, May 28, 2009
A disturbing pair of reports on Pakistan and India. Why India needs nuclear-tipped cruise missiles is beyond me, but most of their ongoing military modernization betrays a profoundly immature view of the possibilities of great-power war. On this score, they disappoint immensely. Because if they're that stupid on their force structure, how out of control might they be on the actual employment?
As for Pakistan, here it's just dumber following dumb--with our money no less.
Here Tom's focus is on India's foolishness. It is remarkable to me that someone as insightful as Tom Barnett should focus on India's behavior as if it is the trigger for Pakistan's past, present, and future proliferation. India and Pakistan have been doing a pas de deux of hatred since partition in 1947. Indian and Pakistan have fought 3 (or is it now 4?) wars over Kashmir, the last coming perilously close to "going nuclear." The Pakistani ISI has been implicated in the ongoing terror war against its neighbor, culminating most recently in the attacks on Mumbai. Pakistan, along with North Korea, has been the primary agent of proliferation for at least the last 20 years (during which the AQ Khan network was active.) And it is India that is behaving irresponsibly?
[Here's a conundrum. Why is it that Indian has been repeatedly attacked by its Muslim neighbor that believes that Kashmir should be part of the Ummah? Note the parallel to the Arab world's attacks on Israel, which they believe should be part of the Ummah. I am sure it is merely a coincidence that the Muslim world has bloody borders with these two, democratic neighbors.]
Tom Barnett's question - "if (India is) that stupid on their force structure, how out of control might they be on the actual employment?" - should apply with even more force to Pakistan, a nation that has thoroughly neglected the development of its human potential in favor of creating human (Deobandi Jihadis) and nuclear weapons. Further, he fails to follow the logic of his own concerns. If India is now considered at risk of recklessness, what evidence do we have that North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan would be more cautious in the use of their nuclear assets?
I am curious to know how Tom Barnett, who is one of our smartest strategic thinkers extant, thinks about this dilemma. Of course, I am even more curious to know how Barack Obama, who makes up in influence what he lacks in experience or strategic vision, thinks about the problem.
Recent Comments