The readings for this week indicate something that I have always noticed in analyses of security issues in South Indian: there is much more concern in relation to the Pakistan than to India, especially regarding the use of nuclear weapons. One of the authors, for instance, does not believe that it is mutual deterrence that has thus far prevented Pakistan from using such weapons. The country’s military command, according to this interpretation, follows a military utility principle, based on a cost-benefit analysis. If the decision to engage in nuclear warfare has not yet been reached, it is because a favorable opportunity in terms of cost benefit has not arisen.
To some extent this concern is warranted. Pakistan has usually been the initiator of the wars and skirmishes between the two countries throughout the years. Pakistan is also a less stable, smaller, and poorer country than India. I believe, however, that much of this concern derives from the preconceived idea that democratic countries, where there is civil oversight over the use of nuclear weapons (or where the decision to use them is totally under the purview of civil authorities), are more prudent as far as the deployment of nuclear weapons is concerned than autocratic regimes or countries, such as Pakistan, where the military are in charge of the nuclear program.
There are many reasons for preferring democracies over autocracies. And civil rule to military rule. But I do not think that being more responsible when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons is one of them. There are many historical instances (including in US history) when the military showed much more restraint than civilians when considering (or advocating) the use of military options to solve international issues. The military know the cost of war. Some civilians (especially those who always felt very insulated from the direct effects of conflicts and violence) might have a tendency to downplay this cost. Furthermore, even in democracies, the decision to use nuclear weapons (either in the case of second strike or even in a preemptive strike, if an enemy attack is considered imminent) would possibly have to be taken in a split second, a characteristic that is not conducive to the existence of extensive checks and balances.
There are many examples throughout history of populist, irresponsible, or unprepared leaders that have been democratically elected. In reality, there seems to be a growing tendency of politicians with that profile to winning elections in many different parts of the globe, including in countries that have nuclear weapons. Is a populist president (or prime minister), and/or one that spouses notions of racial superiority, always a safer bet than military professionals?
Categories
One reply on “Week 11 – Murilo”
Murilo,
As has become the norm with your blog posts, you raise a number of interesting and provocative questions. I agree with your assessment that Pakistan has always been seen as the country that might initiate a nuclear war on the subcontinent–albeit not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. For one thing, Pakistan is outnumbered militarily both in conventional forces, fighter aircraft, and missiles; some suggest the ration is as much as 5:1. For another, Pakistan is the only country in the world (to my knowledge) where the military control the nuclear weapons. This means that in a crisis, it would be the military command, rather than the civilian authorities making the launch decision. This increases the chances of a “launch on warning” scenario, since they would be extremely risk averse and unwilling to be the victim of a surprise attack. — Professor Wallerstein