Douglas Adams says in one of his books, “nothing travels faster than light with the exception of bad news”. His conjecture is mostly assumed to be true. Bad news always transfers faster than light.
North Korea (DPRK) did its first nuclear test on 9th october and now, depending on who you believe, is either apologetic or is ready to do a few more test. Iran is just a couple of steps away from conducting the tests, which gives a convenient excuse to the americans to attack that country. According to this IAEA report, nearly 30 more countries are in the race of acquiring nuclear weapons in near future. With Indian nuclear tests on May 12 1998, we have entered the second round of nuclear weaponisation in the world. Those tests were perfect examples of bad news spreading fast and wide.
The nationalists, led by BJP and its sisters went into a wild frenzy after the tests. The congress, after initial doubts, supported the tests. An unprecedented hysteria engulfed almost the entire populace of this country in subsequent weeks. Ironically, the then prime minister AB Vajpayee termed the nuclear blast as a victory of science. He didn’t mind that an atom bomb, can serve no purpose other than killing a huge population. And of course, no sensible country will ever use it against its enemy, whatever be the provocation. Again, India’s (or Pakistan’s) far right religious fundamentalists can hardly be credited as being ’sensible people’. How can the tests be a victory of science, when science education in India remains in such a dismal state? We produce fewer scientific papers than any developed country, and less than half of the developing world. Baring IISc and TIFR, most of our science institution are in a dilapidated state and science education is in a continuous slippery path in past many years. How can it be a victory of science when, if we break statistics down to mere numbers, in every single aspect, we are behind China, Malaysia and even Brazil?
Pre-independence, with people liek CV Raman, JC Bose, Meghnad Saha, and many more, India was rated very high in science. Look, what have we made ourselves into? We have degenerated to such a level that an evil perversion of science, an inversion of knowledge was applauded as a victory of science, and NOBODY protested. Baring of course, those 4000 students in Kolkata and Arundhati Roy. And she was left alone to write the end of imagination, which the tests surely were. Ok, the left parties protested, but the kind of silence that they are practicing after North Korea did similar blasts 8 years later, it puts a big question mark over the Indian left’s sincerity? Even Iam not sure whether the cpi(m) is against nuclear weapons in general or just against India acquiring those bombs?
We have to be objective in our decision. Let’s forget about who is supporting the bomb, and wh is oppossing it. Let’s look at the objective merits against the case for atom bomb. One of the best reports on DPRK’s nuclear tests can be read at, surprise, the onion. Titled as “N. Korea detonates 40 years of GDP”, this article tells us about the actual cost of the nuclear bomb, albeit in a humourous manner. What price did we pay for our nuclear tests in 1998? What have we sacrificed for this so-called deterrence?
And what deterrence have we got? Are Indians, by any standards, safer now than we were in 1998? Immediately after the blasts we were told that nobody will cast an evil eye upon our country anymore. After the evil eye did come in the wake of Kargil attack, and the attack on the parliament, we were told that the nuclear bomb saved us from a real war. Lies, they were all. It took the USOFA to summon the Pakistan prime minister and president respectively, to take drastic measures to avoid a nuclear war. Perhaps, we don’t realise how close we were from a nuclear catastrophic war in those days. Suppose for a moment that Nawaz Sharif had not agreed to pull the troops back in 1999, or Musharraf had not made the Jan 12 speech, what would have happnned then? Let’s be honest. Nuclear weapons did NOT save us from war, Sharif’s and Musharraf’s pragmatic (clever?) decisions saved us from war. So much about deterrence. So much about being a superpower.
There are huge indicators that India’s tests had in a way encourage the rest of the world, notably Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to follow the same path. We are a self-confessed superpower, who can’t even decide which country to vote for, in the elections to security council elections for non-permanent member. We are a self-appointed superpower, who cannot ensure security of its own people, where the state acts as a apparatus in the hands of the moneybags. It is actually unfortunate that the world is letting us carry this delusions. Treating us with kid-gloves. Most of the world knows this to be untrue, but some countries like DPRK and Iran have started to believe that India has raised its status because of teh atom bomb.
It is similar to what happenned in my village. The biggest Gunda gets the most respect, just because he can beat up or kill anybody whom he doesn’t like. So some of the people think that it is good to become a Goonda themselves. The sensible people know that the Goonda is wrong to beat up anyone at whim, and the real courageous stand up to him, without becoming a goonda themselves. We went the I-will-become-a-goonda-because-China-is-a-goonda way of solving our problems.
It is very important for all of us to know PRECISELY the cost of a nuclear bomb. It is important to know why Amartya Sen, Mahatma Gandhi and Einstein are/were against it. The numbers speak for themselves. We remain in the world periphery in majority of human development indicators. The direct and indirect cost of India’s nuclear bomb is anywehere between $50 billion to $500 billion. (I have filed an RTI application, and hope to get a reply soon) Till then note down that number. Who is paying for it? Of course, you and I. And who else?
The people of Jaduguda are a harassed lot. Their’s is a long struggle, telling the world by their experience about the dangers of uranium mining. Working hard to stop the mining there and save their children. The people near the mines have suffered devastating consequences (pdf). This mine supports the entire nuclear supply of India (we can’t import from NSG countries because of the bomb). Their plight is so visible that the governments of AP and Meghalaya have diallowed UCIL to set up uranium mines in their states. Anybody who has any doubts, or wants to tell us about UCIL propaganda about safe mining, is invited to spend a couple of days in the villages near those mines. I will bear the cost of his/her transport (from anywhere in India) and stay (in the village). Buddha weeps in Jaduguda, is a wonderful film that tells the whole story.
We have achieved absolutely nothing by having nuclear weapons. And lost a lot. Nuclear war reduces the whole paradigm of war to a competition of which country can kill more number of oridinary people, and who can withstand more casualties of its citizens. As I mentioned above, it is an evil pulverisation of science, of humanity and of religion. The whole concept of nuclear bomb goes against the tenets of freedom and democracy.
South Africa remains the only country in the world to have voluntarily destroyed its entire nuclear arsenal in 1994. Its a pity that no other country followed South Africa’s example. It is not that we are a poor country inspite of the nuclear bomb. We are a poor country because of the nuclear bomb.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Nilu // Oct 24, 2006 at 10:06 pm
The logical extension of your argument should end at the invention of the wheel, which, in a way, is recursive and therefore proves the contrary.
2 confused // Oct 24, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Could you expain exactly how nuclear bombs have kept India poor? I am very curious. Kindly explain.
3 Kannan // Oct 24, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Oh well… sir… .. so we are a poor country because of the nuclear bomb…
it is a statement which has no justification.. Did South Africa become a rich country after it destroyed its nuclear arsenal?
And when the whole world is going nuclear and Pakistan literally threatens us in 1991 with dire consequences since its nuclear bomb is almost ready, do you think we ought to have stayed put?
Oh well… you might even think so.. but…. most of the people here do not.
And well..hmm.. going by your gunda analogy.. how do you actually propose to stand up the the gunda? hmm.. maybe admonish him? or speak harsh words? what if he actually slaps you flush in your face.. and leaves you with your ears ringing? what would you do sir?
4 Ashish Gupta // Oct 25, 2006 at 1:16 am
Are you interested in alternate response from allegedly “hysterical far right religious fundamentalist nonsensical” person? I know my points would not change iota of your mindset, but I will write anyway.
Regarding ‘victory of science’, it is important to separate incompatible issues when making a point. When you get a promotion (presumably by fair means), it is victory to your qualifications. And that has nothing to do with the fact that your 10 year old son get C grades in school. An indigenously developed nuclear bomb is victory to science irrespective of number of paper India publishes.
What about costs? Sure, bombs costs a lot. Did you consider what would have been cost had not developed bombs ourselves? Apparently you want to look at one side of equation. Why did Shariff & Musharraff pulled troops back in Kargil? According to you, not because of our deterrence capabilities but their inherent generousness. Which explanation is simpler? Why did Pakistan not go farther than it did?
You are right that courage is standing up to Goonda. Apparently, being brave and ready for defending your country is not your definition of standing up. We have even tried Gandhi’s cheek advise, and have our one cheek (part of Kashmir) with enemey till today.
Cost of nuclear bomb was huge, but even larger is cost of not having them. And benefits from bomb? Still accumulating in various socio-economical form.
I’ll grant that mine workers are not treated fairly, and that is fault of government. That, however, has nothing to do with whether we should have nuclear bombs. Finally, when India developed bomb, it just didn’t develop bomb, it developed nuclear technology, which has many positive benefits which you fail to see, energy being one.
5 anoopsaha // Oct 25, 2006 at 1:51 am
@Nilu
How?
@Confused
Mathematics/Economics: The amount spent in nuclear weapons and reaching the ‘minimum credible deterrent’ threshold is huge. They could and SHOULD have been used elsewhere.
Psychology: It generated this huge hysteria, a kind of intoxication, which led our focus away from main issues. The atom bomb is for ‘fooling the masses’.
@Kannan
The whole world was not going nuclear. NPT was ridulous, but serious work was being done under CTBT. We didn’t sign it then. If we had signed it, Pakistan would have followed us. We are NEVER going to use our nuclear bomb, right?
@Ashish Gupta
Thanks for writing.
When you get a promotion (presumably by fair means), it is victory to your qualifications. And that has nothing to do with the fact that your 10 year old son get C grades in school.
AS: What Iam saying is, if I get a promotion, and I can’t write a “hello world” program in C, then I cannot claim it to be a victory of my software skills.
According to you, not because of our deterrence capabilities but their inherent generousness.
The word I used was pragmatism, not ‘generousness’. They made their decisions because of US pressure. You can’t deny that. The point Iam making is that nuclear weapons didn’t prevent us from another war, as our president claims.
Lastly, we had nuclear technology since 1970s. We were generating nuclear power since then, and so are around 100 other countries. Russia, US and Canada helped us set up the plants then. The bomb uses enriched uranium, and has no technological outputs. Our nuclear tech. is way behind the places without bomb, like Sweden, Japan, and South Africa.
6 confused // Oct 25, 2006 at 2:15 am
”Mathematics/Economics: The amount spent in nuclear weapons and reaching the ‘minimum credible deterrent’ threshold is huge. They could and SHOULD have been used elsewhere”
Thats what I am interested in. How much is the cost according to you? Only if we know the cost, can we compute how it has managed to keep India poor. Also, please explain since how long has this cost been affecting us?
Thanks again. This promises to be a most interesting discussion.
7 Nitin // Oct 25, 2006 at 9:25 am
(reposted from your blogspot blog)
Dear Anoop,
Your’s is just a variation of the guns vs butter argument; less guns implies more butter. The problem is that this argument is valid only in the special case where there is global unanimity on getting rid of all weapons of war, not just nuclear ones. In practical terms, the guns vs butter argument fails to hold. [Related posts here and here]
You wrote that
Nuclear weapons did NOT save us from war, Sharif’s and Musharraf’s pragmatic (clever?) decisions saved us from war.
That statement is bizarre in more than one way. But you should ask yourself what caused them to be pragmatic in the first place. Also examine why China is interested in engaging India in negotiations (boundary disputes on the back burner) compared to the belligerence it reserves for Taiwan and Japan, and the contempt it reserved for India post-1965.
In any case, if your argument is that developing and maintaining nuclear weapons takes away resources from human development then I don’t see how the 1998 tests can change things. The cost of tests was a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclearisation, and the major part of that cost was sunk anyway.
Several decades of wrong-headed economic policies that have denied the Indian citizen economic freedom are more to blame for poverty than the nuclear programme.
8 Anoop Saha // Oct 25, 2006 at 8:35 pm
@confused
I found no credible literature, from where I can find accurately the total cost of India’s nuclearisation. I have filed an RTI application, but it will take a month to get a reply.
But this cost is definitely more than $50 biillion, if we start from the first nuclear test.
@nitin
Thanks for your comment. Your conclusion seems to suggest that China is afraid that we will nuke them, and hence they are talking to us, right? Wrong. China is talking to us for the same reason that it is talking to Vietnam. Because talks are better and cheaper way of solving border disputes. It is an entirely false notion that our supposedly enhanced status around the world is because we have the bomb.
Nuclearisation started with the tests. The whole expenditure is meaningless. The economic cost doesn’t end with the tests. Tests are actually beginning of another phase. Typically, a minimum of 30-40 nuclear warheads are needed to maintain a credible deterrence.
As I said earlier, nuclear bombs are uncoventional weapons. It makes no difference to the strength of armed forces.
There is an human resource issue as well. DRDO would have been much better if scientists like APJ Kalam, and Kasturirangan would have worked in that organisation. Instead we have got this behemoth of an organisation, that holds the world record for producing duds, one after another.
9 confused // Oct 25, 2006 at 10:30 pm
”I found no credible literature, from where I can find accurately the total cost of India’s nuclearisation. I have filed an RTI application, but it will take a month to get a reply.
But this cost is definitely more than $50 biillion, if we start from the first nuclear test. ”
You say you found no credible evidence of the cost and yet you say definitely cost more than $50 billion. You still know but you dont know! Do you see the problem there?
10 anoopsaha // Oct 25, 2006 at 10:33 pm
@confused
That’s an estimate from how much other countries (Pakistan) have spent. I said that I don’t know the exact amount. I don’t see the problem. Even $20 billion is unacceptable.
11 confused // Oct 25, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Please be specific. You made a statement that India is poor because of nuclear bombs. Now you furnish no facts to back up your argument, infact you don’t even know what is the cost of nuclear weapons, then how did you reach the conclusion that India is poor because of nuclear weapons?
I am still very curious. Also, your whole piece was directed against the 1998 nuclear tests, now you say costs since the first explosion.
So here we are left with two questions.
a. Total cost of nuclear weapons. Your opinion has to be backed by citation, you cannot dream of a figure can you?
b. What part of cost was spent before 1998 and how much was spent after that.
Only then we can decide about poverty.
Thanks again. As I said, its going to be most interesting.
12 confused // Oct 25, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Ahem. So from a figure of $50 to $500 billion , now you say, 20 billion$ is unacceptable. The point was never about what is acceptable or not, point was how it has managed to keep India poor. You might find even $10 unacceptable, but that wont keep India poor. Will it?
13 confused // Oct 25, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Can you give me a cite about Pakistan spending $50 billion? I would be most interested.
14 Nitin // Oct 26, 2006 at 8:34 am
Anoop.
The tests in 1998 were just a milestone in the long process of nuclearisation that started in the 1950 with Nehru & Bhabha, and has continued for six decades. The cost of nuclearisation, in monetary terms, has been huge. Let’s assume this was a wrong thing to do. Can we unspend it, ask for a refund? Nope. That’s why it is sunk cost. Sunk costs, as we all know, should not influence rational decision-making.
The question, then, is does it make sense to spend whatever we are spending, to maintain a nuclear deterrent instead of spending it on, say, healthcare? That’s the guns vs butter argument. Imagine a cave man faced with a decision–should he spend all his days hunting for food to feed his starving family or should he spend some on building a fence around his cave to keep off wild animals? Devoting all his time to hunt for good (okay, grow, if you are vegetarian) will no doubt make his family well-fed. This is no good if a wild animal makes away with any one of them, for he would have hunted/farmed just to feed the lion. Conversely, just building a strong fence and leaving the family to starve is also stupid.
The problem is that many people agree that the latter is stupid, but somehow argue that the former is a great thing to do.
15 anoopsaha // Oct 27, 2006 at 1:00 pm
@Nitin
As you mentioned, nuclear tests are just a milestone in the long process of nuclear weaponisation. And a very important one. Typically a nation needs an arsenal of around 100 warheads to achieve deterrence. The tests are needed only to prove that the way we are going, our technological capability is right. The whole process of nuclearisation is wrong. We didn’t stop after the tests. We went on enriching more uranium, developing nuclear capable missiles and submarines, aiming for targets beyond Pakistan.
Beginning late 1960s, the entire focus of our nuclear program was to develop weapons. All other aspects, which were the focus of Homi Bhabha. Both of them were oppossed to the bomb.
The important aspect is can we undo the damage. Of course, we can. I feel that denuclearisation of south asia, where both India and Pakistan destroy there nuclear arsenal voluntarily can achieve that purpose. We need to turn our talks that way.
16 confused // Oct 28, 2006 at 1:28 am
Anoop,
What happened to the poverty argument? I am still waiting your figures and citations.
Thanks….
And by and by, what about China?
17 anoopsaha // Oct 30, 2006 at 1:37 pm
@confused:
Thanks for your queries. Inquisitiveness is always good. I was off net during the weekend, and hence could not reply earlier.
what about China? China is also a criminal country. Its nuclear program is probably worse than India’s.
As per, evidence to support that we have spent more than $50 billion in our nuclear weapons program. I have already linked to the articles, the pdf document mentions the costs, although none of it is official. The cost is not just of the test, and my post was not just against the test. It was against the whole process of nuclear weaponisation, and the tests form a significant part of it.
From where I reached the estimate. I got the numbers from July 1998 issue of bulletin for atomic scientists. An article there analyses the entire cost of India’s nuclear program and its economic implications. There is no web version of it. I will dig out more numbers.
18 confused // Oct 31, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Anoop,
Thanks for trying. Please do keep trying. Also there is a big difference between cost of India’s nuclear program and nuclear weapons program.
Are you against nuclear program of any kind?
Leave a Comment