Nuclear Weapons and National Security: Where Do We Draw the Line?

After a long wait, India recently released a draft version of its nuclear doctrine which, according to National Security Adviser Mr. Brajesh Mishra, is just a draft for public discussion and not a final document. The doctrine calls for a minimum nuclear deterrent based on a survivable triad of land, air and sea-based systems; furthermore, the nuclear trigger, according to this document, should be in the hands of the Prime Minister. This nuclear doctrine, however, has not been received very warmly in the United States. In fact, the three major pillars of the US government — the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon — have each voiced their displeasure in the draft. For example, White House spokesman David Leavy stated that “…the presence of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent raises the possibility of an arms race that is no one’s interest… We are trying to make the case that in fact security is more enhanced in the absence of nuclear weapons.”

Equally, James Rubin, US State Department spokesman, declared that “[America has] taken the position that nuclear weapons do not contribute to greater security in South Asia.” India, in its defense has responded to the U.S. criticisms by stating that “as a sovereign country, it is India’s right to decide for itself what is in its larger security interest.” Furthermore, India has used the recent uprising in the South Asia region – Kargil – as evidence that nuclear weapons can deter and prevent escalation of warfare. This situation brings forth an interesting scenario. We are faced with a current global power, whose power has been derived from military might, announcing to an upcoming contender that she should not follow by example. Is this a legitimate stance on both sides? Is India, being a role model of the developing world, stepping into the right direction by investing its resources in nuclear weaponry? Furthermore, does the US have a right to voice concern over the escalation of nuclear weapons when it has itself been the leader of the pact? Or is just simple a vivid example of “the blind leading the blind?”

The United States for decades has served as the poster child for nuclear weapons and its peace through strength slogan. Throughout the Cold War, the US stuck to its traditional realist approach to defense and national security. The fundamental premise rested on its military capability and the need for a balance of power. Hence, after World War II, the US invested a lot of time and effort into the development of nuclear weapons. National Security became a part of the American culture, and the government began pouring umpteen dollars into its military buildup. Power was the goal, and power for the US was gained through military force where security was measured in terms of armies and their capacity to mobilize effectively and quickly.

Arms and security became the paramount goal of the US, and its importance was equated to the fact that war between the Soviets and the United States was inevitable. Hence, preparation for war became essential for maintaining national security, and this preparedness consequently led to the arms race. But the trade-off was drastic. Domestic problems, such as crime and education, were neglected and have come back, today, to haunt these nations severely. In hindsight it seems that in the midst of the cold war rationality was overshadowed by ideology that promoted the need to build arms to deter the opponent and protect the nation-state.