& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Dualism of nuclear technology: The dark side

Shamima Nasreen
Accessibility of nuclear technology enhances the possibility of terrorist nuclear attacks. Nuclear proliferation has made it easier for the terrorist to possess deadly weapons. and International terrorism has made to make tire whole nuclear deterrence issue irrelevant. The recent nuclear deal between US and India will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons in South Asia where a large number of people are living in a state of poverty because nuclear technology has dual role, both good and bad.
Dual nature of technology Technolog)' is neutral when it is applied to enhance the chances of life and death. The more technolog)' progresses, the greater its power is to not only improve life but also to devise ever more deadly methods of destroying it. This was illustrated by the terrorist attacks of 11 September, where 19 people used apparently benign technolog)’ to conduct death and destruction on two of die most prominent bastions of corporate and militarily might in the world, the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The real mystery is how one of the weakest states in the world can be behind a technological accomplishment that disgraced the most powerful state on the earth. This put forward the alarming question of how modern technology can eventually boost terrorist strength. The most significant aspect of the 11 September attacks is not the scope of the actual destruction, or the horrific number of causalities, but the awareness that the terrorist threat is much greater than anybody anticipated. This is due to two factors: one is that the loopholes in the world system which terrorists can exploit far exceed the measure taken so far to counter the threat: the second is that opportunities for terrorists to exploit innovations in technology for their own purpose have been
greatly underestimated.
Possible Strength of Terrorist groups through nuclear technology:
So far, terrorism's main field of action has been that of hijacking airliners. But the technological dimension is worth probing thoroughly, especially since die worstcase scenario of terrorists hijacking nuclear weapons can no longer be dismissed as a possibility. With the secrets of nuclear technology becoming more and more easily accessible, many countries are proliferating. These are the breedinggrounds for nuclear terrorism.
Ttue, technology introduces an ever greater amount of uncertainty as to the reliability of weapons of mass destruction in die hands of terrorists. But die rule seems to be that technological advances operate more in favour of terrorists than they do in favour of the antiterrorist drive. This makes it all the more imperative for the anti-terrorist drive to focus on eradicating the root causes of terrorism through an overhaul of the entire world system rather than concentrating efforts exclusively on pur suing a specific group or groups of terrorists (Mohamed Sid-Ahmed: 2001).
Possible Nuclear Perils in South Asia
India and Pakistan share a fifty-year history of conflict and war. Major unresolved issues such as Kashmir remain. Further violent conflict and even war is distinedy possible. Many believe that it is ver)' risky to the introduction of nuclear weapons into such a dangerous regional setting. So Indo-US nuclear deal makes the region more vulnerable.
It is difficult to construct a stable nuclear balance in South Asia. Numerous factors contributed to this concern. The nuclear forces on both sides may be small and vulnerable to pre-emptive or preventive attack. It is difficult to develop survivable command and control arrangements for nuclear forces.
Moreover, it is easy to mismanage nuclear relationships in ways that undermine stability, and the geographical proximity of India and Pakistan exacerbates the difficulty of creating a stable nuclear balance.
Any deployment of nuclear weapons raises the risk of accidental or unauthorized use. Several worries were paramount. First, new and unavoidably immature nuclear custodial systems may be especially vulnerable to accident or abuse. Second, fear of nuclear decapitation in South Asia may result in extensive pre-
delegation of nuclear launch authority, a practice that increases the risk of unauthorized use. There is an inherent tension between safety and stability; it is not possible to maximize both simultaneously. Third, the presence of nuclear weapons in countries with potential for domestic political instability is a matter of tension.
India and Pakistan may compete in the arms race within the limits of their means or, perhaps more likely, even beyond their means because of their nuclear capabilities. This “arms crawl" could hinder
economic development, undermine political stability, and harm relations between India and Pakistan. (Steven E. Miller 1999)
According to Ashis Nandy, one of the leading Indian social, cultural and political critic of, "Pakistan's lack of strategic depth along with New Delhi's nuclear and conventional superiority places strong pressure on Islamabad to adopt a doctrine of nuclear first use. A deployment will inevitably involve considerable decentralization of command and control move, which threatens to make it more accident-prone. As commanders at
the operational level work to prevent a decapitating attack of nuclear assets in the face of the intense crises, the chances for inaccurate decision making and unintended launch could arise. In Lhe process of acquiring nuclear power you may not be dead physically, but you are already morally, socially and psychologically a corpse."
Implications of US-Indo Nuclear deal in South Asia ’Lhe 22nd July 2008 was the crucial day for the ruling Indian UPA Government as their Parliament (Lok Shaba) voted on a confidence motion in approving Indo-US nuclear deal. The Ruling Alliance won the motion but the fact that the nuclear debate would continue to remain is a controver-sial/divisive issue in the body politic of India.
The interesting fact to note is India's main opposition party- BJP and alliance - arc also in favour of Indo-US Nuclear cooperation. It was during BJP's Government, the proposal for an Indo-US Nuclear Pact was first conceived by tire two sides, though formally a mutual agreement was initiated during the ruling UPA Government in India (2004-5).
Ambassador (Retd) Mohammed Mohsin, former foreign Secretary, Bangladesh said that politically and diplomatically it is indeed a big achievement for India's ruling alliance in wining the parliamentary support to its policy. India is generally revered all over the world not only for its un-interrupted democratic governments but also for being the cradle for nonviolence policy following Gandhian philosophy. But in the new millennium it seems India has opted to sacrifice its traditional Philosophy and opt for nuclear capacity both for weapons and energy, all these without signing the NPT. It is now to be seen if both the US and India can successfully conclude the deal before the Government changes in Washington.
It is interesting to mention, Pakistani Prime Minister, on the face of it, congratulated his Indian counterpart for the parliamentary victory. Similarly, it is possible that both the Russian Federation, a traditional ally of India, and China, for understandable diplomatic reasons, would not express any dissenting views, but (or the time being would watch the further developments (though both of them are also major sources for uranium and nuclear technology).
Finally, the proposed Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation agreement is concluded; it would totally erode the meaning and value of the NPT. In other words, India would also rank with the five Big Nuclear Countries (as stipulated as pre-1967 Nuclear Powers in the NPT). Only time will tell what would be the situation of the other four Nuclear Powers (especially Russia or China may decide to conclude similar agreements with other non nuclear aspirantcountries e.g. Iran, Israel, North Korea, Syria, Brazil and etc). All of these states expect to get aligned with the global economic benefits in relieving competitive demand in international oil markets; it will produce an economic bonanza in nuclear exports to India and other nuclear aspirant countries.
Nuclear wastes are difficult to dispose off. It is a matter of wonder how India would dispose off its increasing amount of nuclear wastes in near future without polluting the environment.
Dual stance of US
Bruce K Gagnon, coordinator of the US-based Global Network said that nuclear proliferation is dangerous. The US is telling Iran or North Korea against developing nuclear weapons. Even George Bush has described the weapons of mass destruction as evil. So it is wrong for the US to help any other country develop nuclear power because it would increase the risk of seeing development of nuclear weapons
proliferate and fall into new hands, which may trigger a nuclear arms race in South Asia.
India's traditional rival, Pakistan, indicated that it wanted a similar agreement. "Pakistan believes that we also have a claim, an expectation for international cooperation under safeguards for nuclear power generation," said Pakistani foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam. But the US declined to enter into a similar \ agreement with Pakistan, the other South Asian nuclear power. Obviously the US wishes to build up a strategic alliance with India, taking on board Japan, Israel and Australia (a major uranium supplying Asian country), mainly to build up a wall against China.Whatever may be the wishes of the US Power, the personal view of Ambassador (Retd) Mohammed Mohsin is it would remain a "pipe dream" for India to face up to China without taking on board the other South Asian countries, most of whom today enjoy and maintain close ties with China militarily, commercially as well as strategically. Needless to say India's policy of dealing with the neighbouring countries bilaterally and individually, while India professes multilateral relationship with the rest of the world.
Where to draw the line
There should be a limit on how far the United States will go to make friends. The world has had genuine success, under the NPT, persuading South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Libya to give up their bomb-making programmes. It will be a harder sell in the future, knowing that the US has now winked at India's bomb, after winking at Israel's bomb. And it comes at a time of indisputable concern not only about proliferation, but also about the theft of nuclear materials, and terrorism. These are some of the major issues the world has to consider together collectively. The author is Masters in IR, University of Dhaka, and worts for an NGO