It’s a Sunday morning, and I’ve been awake since 8 am, thinking. My Sundays usually don’t plan for much of that, since I’d prefer to waste them sleeping or just generally lazing around. This morning, however, an article in the Times of India caught my eye – ‘Whoever attacks, Pak will hit India’. The basic point of the article is a shift in Pakistan’s nuclear strategy (or perhaps it’s been their strategy all along - to tell the truth, I really don’t know much about international happenings). Retired Pakistani general Mirza Aslam Beg says that regardless of who attacks them (Pakistan) or tries to ‘degrade’ their nuclear assets, New Delhi will be a gently smoking crater. This is a new theme, which throws the question of deterrence into stark relief.
The nuclear bomb was first brought onto the world stage at the end of World War II, used to wipe out the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reverberations of this bombing were so intense that they’re still being felt today – even Microsoft Word doesn’t have issues when you use those two names. In fact, it helpfully capitalizes their names, at leaves it at that. Not too many things are capable of commanding such respect from Word, which should give you an indication of just how serious this is. The pilot of the plane carrying one of the nukes was apparently so horrified by what he did that he killed himself. Hmm, I wonder if Bush would call that collateral damage? Anyhow, cheap shots at the monkey in the White House aside…
Men (and Women, for that matter), have always fought to protect what was theirs – and, in some cases, to take what is theirs (not their own theirs, someone else’s theirs). World War II is a prime example of what happens when an entire country suddenly gets the Napoleonic Itch. Thankfully, though, at that point, the limit of damage that one could cause was limited to conventional bombs – say, capable of destroying a building, or a few buildings at a shot. Also, to bring about this happy state of affairs required some sort of self sacrifice – the willingness to fly a slow, bumbling bomber into the range of enemy guns, or to sneak across enemy lines in order to blow something up. One way or another, there was a human cost to bringing pain to the enemy. These days, we’ve gone beyond that. Rockets don’t feel pain. Rockets don’t have families that are destroyed just as surely as their targets. It’s good, in a way, since it saves a lot of heartbreak. The flip side, of course, is the fact that since all you’re losing is a pile of metal and circuitry, there’s nothing preventing us from firing salvo after salvo at ‘the bad guys’. Border scuffles are a good example of this. If it involved some human sacrifice to fire an artillery shell across no man’s land, you can bet it would happen a lot less.
Now, nuclear weapons are a beast of an entirely different texture. ‘Small Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’, the only two atom bombs ever to be used in war (by the Americans, if you didn’t know, the same people who press most stringently for non proliferation, and get rabid at the thought at the enemy using them), were capable of destroying a city. These days, their ‘yield’ is much, much higher. Refinements in technology, and frantic work by militaries across the globe have brought us to the point that a nuclear strike would ensure the death of that city, and irradiation of the land around to such an extent, that our generation, at least, would never be able to return.
We’re no longer talking about military deterrence. What we’re doing, ALL of us, you, me, even people who have no say in the matter, is tacitly approving of our governments holding the rest of the world hostage. Why do you think Iran wants the bomb so badly? Certainly not as the centrepiece of a governmental shindig. It’s defence of the worst sort – the threat of nuclear obliteration matched by the same on the other side. A beautiful metaphor was the last scene of Reservoir Dogs – six men holding guns, each pointing at someone else so that no one was safe. And all it took for all six of them to die was for one of them to start shooting. And they did.
The reasons for having nukes are endless. Defence. Prestige. The other guy has it. If we don’t, he can do what he will with us. It’s the ultimate equaliser – no matter how small your country is, if you have a nuclear bomb, it automatically buys you the right to be called Sir. It’s also proof that Power is not a zero sum game. If everyone has the bomb, then we’re all Sir. Or Ma’am. Or dead.
The nuclear bomb was first brought onto the world stage at the end of World War II, used to wipe out the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reverberations of this bombing were so intense that they’re still being felt today – even Microsoft Word doesn’t have issues when you use those two names. In fact, it helpfully capitalizes their names, at leaves it at that. Not too many things are capable of commanding such respect from Word, which should give you an indication of just how serious this is. The pilot of the plane carrying one of the nukes was apparently so horrified by what he did that he killed himself. Hmm, I wonder if Bush would call that collateral damage? Anyhow, cheap shots at the monkey in the White House aside…
Men (and Women, for that matter), have always fought to protect what was theirs – and, in some cases, to take what is theirs (not their own theirs, someone else’s theirs). World War II is a prime example of what happens when an entire country suddenly gets the Napoleonic Itch. Thankfully, though, at that point, the limit of damage that one could cause was limited to conventional bombs – say, capable of destroying a building, or a few buildings at a shot. Also, to bring about this happy state of affairs required some sort of self sacrifice – the willingness to fly a slow, bumbling bomber into the range of enemy guns, or to sneak across enemy lines in order to blow something up. One way or another, there was a human cost to bringing pain to the enemy. These days, we’ve gone beyond that. Rockets don’t feel pain. Rockets don’t have families that are destroyed just as surely as their targets. It’s good, in a way, since it saves a lot of heartbreak. The flip side, of course, is the fact that since all you’re losing is a pile of metal and circuitry, there’s nothing preventing us from firing salvo after salvo at ‘the bad guys’. Border scuffles are a good example of this. If it involved some human sacrifice to fire an artillery shell across no man’s land, you can bet it would happen a lot less.
Now, nuclear weapons are a beast of an entirely different texture. ‘Small Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’, the only two atom bombs ever to be used in war (by the Americans, if you didn’t know, the same people who press most stringently for non proliferation, and get rabid at the thought at the enemy using them), were capable of destroying a city. These days, their ‘yield’ is much, much higher. Refinements in technology, and frantic work by militaries across the globe have brought us to the point that a nuclear strike would ensure the death of that city, and irradiation of the land around to such an extent, that our generation, at least, would never be able to return.
We’re no longer talking about military deterrence. What we’re doing, ALL of us, you, me, even people who have no say in the matter, is tacitly approving of our governments holding the rest of the world hostage. Why do you think Iran wants the bomb so badly? Certainly not as the centrepiece of a governmental shindig. It’s defence of the worst sort – the threat of nuclear obliteration matched by the same on the other side. A beautiful metaphor was the last scene of Reservoir Dogs – six men holding guns, each pointing at someone else so that no one was safe. And all it took for all six of them to die was for one of them to start shooting. And they did.
The reasons for having nukes are endless. Defence. Prestige. The other guy has it. If we don’t, he can do what he will with us. It’s the ultimate equaliser – no matter how small your country is, if you have a nuclear bomb, it automatically buys you the right to be called Sir. It’s also proof that Power is not a zero sum game. If everyone has the bomb, then we’re all Sir. Or Ma’am. Or dead.
9 comments:
Pro proliferation?
I think you've missed my point entirely.
I think the bomb's a waste of time, money, technical expertise, and lives.
That said, i know that there's no way to turn back the clock. So the bomb's going to be with us whether we like it or not - it's going to be part of the final solution (no, i'm not talking about a war). I just think it's stupid to have to express our superiority by how much we can destroy.
Yeah, that's what sucks. Dont get me started on America - the root of most problems IS the fact that you dont live by world standards. I pay 50 rupees per litre...say about $4 per gallon, roughly. ALthough, my country has yet to start a war to ensure that i can continue to buy petrol for $4 a gallon.
So america's a house, and the rest of us buggers are anthills, eh?
Interesting point of view. Utter bullshit, but interesting nonetheless.
Look, dont fool yourself into believing that you, as an american reached the top by your own efforts. Do a little research before you come up with these odd points of view. When the rest of the industrialised world has been ravaged by war (WWII), and you're the only one left standing - not because of anything you did, but because the theater of war was a different continent altogether, then yeah, it's easy to get to the top. You're not 'playing by a different set of rules', you were just holding the entire deck of cards.
You've got an oddly fatalistic view of the world, havent you? If we have the curiosity and capability to create newer and newer forms of technology, then i'd say that we have the capability to distinguish between what's good for us and what isnt. Maybe not americans, since they need instuctions on a packet of toothpicks, but the rest of the world, anyhow.
Okay, that last one was a cheap shot. I appologise. But the rest of what i said stands.
now what the hell is this? the oldest game in the world is to spit at the other guy and run away before he can retaliate. whoever has the power uses it, regardless of who it is. first brits, then americans.
people do what people do, and the idea that the common American (or any guy anywhere else) has about the rest of the world means fuck-all.
What Americans do, because they are the most powerful, might differ from what others might do in the same positions, but only in the details.
And, don't forget, you are talking about a country that has existed for merely 250 years. That is, to human existence, a puny amount.
If you have no history, and if everything you encounter is new, you will make mistakes. The mistake that Americans make, in my opinion, is in thinking that all this is happening for the first time. If so, they are wrong. Other countries have ruled, and they have fallen by the wayside, and the same thing will happen here.
But none of this is to dispute that right now they are on top and (moral arguments aside) free to do what they like.
But that's the point, isnt it? Yeah, okay, history moves in cycles. Yeah, okay, humans are vengeful, and no matter how we rationalise it, the best game in the world is that of one upmanship. But shouldn't we try for something more? If we keep tearing shit down, sooner or later, we'll run out of stuff to destroy. And, come to think of it, i dont agree entirely. If the game was constantly one upmanship, we wouldnt have gotten this far. There are constructive forces also at work, they just dont come to enough notice cause mostly, they dont make for interesting reading.
See, my point is that we're infintely more dangerous to ourselves than we were before. We have the nuclear option now. It might be unfair to the americans, but they dont have as much margin for error as the preceeding empires had. That's why they have to be way more responsible. Either that, or let the cockroaches take over.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/endofworld.html
I'll throw in my two cents. Or paise. Yeah, 2 paise seems more approrpriate.
We are going to finish each other off and the end seems inevitable. Therefore, why not just use the quickest and most efficient way to get over with the unnecessary drama, i.e. use the N-bomb and achieve a smooth demise.
"We" in the above paragraph refers to Homo-Sapiens. (No Pig, I'm not homo-phobic or anything). It seems the other commentator (see above my post) prefers classification of Homo-Sapiens - Americans vs Indians vs Rest of the World, and that's absolutely valid. But, I don't think any one is going to truly survive post-destruction caused by the N-bomb. We're all going to be victims. Some might come out alive but the human Anaconda (no, not MY Anaconda which is indeed a unique piece of furniture if I say so myself... I'm talking about the N-bomb being the human Anaconda due to it's massive size etc.)...
Anyway, it seems I digressed a little bit. My vague take on this whole issue is that Homo-Sapiens are deemed for extinction in the near future. We might possibly prevent extinction if and only if peace activism becomes incredibly violent and smothers all in its quest for eternal happiness.
OR, if somebody can cook me Butter Chicken twice a week.
-Tariq
p.s. How are you? How much "fun" are you having? - and I mean in the sickest and infinitely disgusting sense. Where art thou?
Oh, and do you want to keep in touch? - and no, I do not mean that in the sickest and infinitely gay sense.
'Tis not trivial at all. Holla back, yo!
Tardog,
Sorry - havent been online too much in a while, in the middle of my exams. Yeah, hell, I want to keep in touch - where the fuck have you been, anyway?
Btw, congrats on the degree. What plans?
Agrajag?
Very nice.
Post a Comment