7.98                                                                                          Feature

THE INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR FRACAS:
U.S. Tries Again to 'Hustle the East'

Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown, for the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down; and the end of the fight is tombstone white with the name of the late deceased, and the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East."

— Rudyard Kipling

by Orville "Doc" Carney
Military Affairs Editor

MUNCIE, IN—We've been trying to "hustle the east" since 1947. Last month, we learned the results, as both India and Pakistan confounded the CIA by conducting a series of tests involving a reported ten (or eleven) underground nuclear explosions.

In the aftermath, media coverage of these events centered mainly on the number of explosions, their "yield," the sophistication of the devices, their potential for "weaponization" and speculation on how to "contain" the latest nuclear threat.

And while there has been mild media and political criticism of our intelligence agencies, no one seems willing to point out that the United States played a significant part in laying the groundwork that led to development of these devices, by providing, at various times and under various administrations, expertise, equipment and material for their respective nuclear programs. To that extent, at least, we must share responsibility for loosing the nuclear genie on the subcontinent.

The collective world attitude of both government and media seems to be one of "business as usual." After all, the beast has been around for more than 50 years, and thus far it's not bitten anyone except the Japanese.

But there's a problem with that rationale, and it has to do with the two countries involved. Even in the depths of the Cold War, it was the United States government, and that of the USSR, that were really at odds. Few Americans actually hated Russians, and I'm sure that most Russians, even in the absence of a free press, didn't spend a whole lot of time demonizing Americans.

The situation is different with India and Pakistan, not just because of their proximity, but because of their joint history and respective cultures. While it would be unfair to say that all Pakistanis hate all Indians, it would be fair (and accurate) to say that a majority of Pakistanis hate Indians, and vice-versa.

Kipling's little verse expresses an immutable truth about our neighbors on the Indian subcontinent -- not the undeniable racism of colonial Great Britain (the context in which they were written), but rather the fact that these cultures are so old, so complex and so steeped in mysticism that they are not easily understood by those of us raised and schooled according to the precepts of "Western Civilization 101."

There is much to know about the factors that might have influenced India to conduct nuclear tests (again), and Pakistan to follow up with tests of her own. Without at least a rudimentary knowledge of the peoples involved in this latest nuclear (mis)adventure, it's simply not possible to reach rational conclusions regarding the potential for nuclear escalation on the subcontinent.

READ MORE ABOUT THE SUBCONTINENT:

Languages and cultures

Religions

Colonies and wars

The political dialogue following the Indian blasts was typical of old-fashioned big power politics. "Don't repeat the mistake of the Indians," President Clinton told the Pakistani president, "or we'll be forced by law to implement sanctions."

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tells the world he's gone and done it. (UPI-PTV)

These threats were repeated by various politicians around the world. Both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund withdrew loans and other financial support, money dearly needed by the millions of desperately poor people of the subcontinent.

Meanwhile, in the real world of Pakistan, the great majority of the Pakistani people were screaming for nuclear parity, yearning to possess their own nuclear genie. And somehow, American intelligence agencies, in all their numbers, failed to note either the impending Indian tests or their almost immediate follow-ups by the Pakistanis.

The aftermath of the dual tests saw politicians of every stripe, from virtually every western nation, deploring the perfidy of both countries and partisan recriminations continue to fly in all directions. The facts are, however, that the US, Canada, France, Germany, China and the former USSR all contributed, in various degrees, to the arming of both countries.

Read a nuclear chronology of India/Pakistan

This writer, in 1956, was a 13-year-old member of the Civil Air Patrol, and knew every Soviet combat aircraft by its silhouette. We met weekly, discussing the nature  the threat, updating alert rosters and studying all aspects of the new nuclear age. In school, we regularly practiced "duck and cover" maneuvers designed to "survive" the nuclear holocaust that everyone anticipated.

This period saw the genesis of "survivalist" theory, and underground bomb shelters were being built and stocked with foodstuffs and water all over the country. The threat was real and the fear often palpable. But we knew what "'da bomb" was all about.

Somehow, with the death of the USSR, those fears disappeared and all of us, wherever we live in the world, were lulled into a sense of "nuclear complacency," consigning our fears and, indeed, our hard-earned knowledge, to the ash bin of history. Lest we forget, let me stir those ashes, and remind readers of the realities and horrors of the nuclear genie.

READ A PRIMER ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Our undeniable involvement in the nuclear history of both India and Pakistan is regrettable, but nonetheless a fact. With India and Pakistan, as well as other countries, our stance has always been reminiscent of the gambler who hedges his bets. Not knowing who will win, and being unable to decide which side to back, we've engaged in a process of encouraging "parity."

The 1965 India/Pakistan war provides a good example. When India seized army posts on the Pakistani side of the border, Pakistan countered with tanks, many US supplied. India threw in her (at least partially US supplied) air force, which was countered by the the US trained and supplied Pakistani air force. And so on and so on around the world for the last half century or more, leaving many countries justifiably wondering at the aims of our foreign policy.

On May 29, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "[Not achieving a nuclear test ban] would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any time and of any party."

Even as he spoke, preparations were underway for installation of the General Electric boiling water reactors at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) in India and for supplying Pakistan with their first light water research reactor.

One serious problem with our form of government is that it renews itself every four years, and the incoming administration invariably has an agenda and priorities different from those of the outgoing administration.

It used to be that artillery was the king of battle. Louis XIV, of France, had his cannon inscribed, "The final argument of kings." That is no longer true.

In today's world the final argument is radioactive, and the king is not safe, nor his vassals, nor, indeed, anyone else, anywhere in the world. And though the yield of the Indian and Pakistani nukes is much smaller than comparable US weapons, the detonation of just one, according to some experts, would result in atmospheric contamination equalling that of the Chernobyl disaster.

And I'd remind Gridlock & Load readers that Chernobyl's contamination reached this country, and much of the rest of the world. If estimates of the number of nukes possessed by both sides is accurate, and if all those devices were used in a short period of time, the fallout could be calamitous.

In the coming weeks and months we'll hear more speculation as to the size, yield, and "weaponization" potential of the various devices. We'll hear more talk of the mutual antagonisms perpetrated by the two countries, we'll speculate concerning their potential use of their "newly acquired" weapons, and recrimination will be piled upon recrimination regarding "fault."

The bottom line? It's nobody's fault but our own.

Having flexed their nuclear muscles, will either India or Pakistan employ their weapons? It's impossible to accurately predict, but their attitude, reflected on bulletin boards across the Internet, and by the statements of their leaders, appears to be, "It ain't nobody's business if we do."

Orville "Doc" Carney is a retired US Army Special Forces sergeant first-class. He also is the editor and publisher of The Patriot newspaper and Web site and is Gridlock & Load's longtime Military Affairs Editor. Please email him and tell him what you think of this story.