Nuclear Proliferation between India and Pakistan Essay
During the period when the British government withdrew its influence from the Indian sub-continent immediately after the Second World War, the region was merely divided primarily on the basis of religion to two major states, India and Pakistan. During this particular period, Kashmir was also included within Indian sub-continent. However, the issue pertaining to the which state Kashmir should be incorporated into had been in a ranging contest since then to date principally because of the high population of the region comprising of Muslims. Cirincione & Rajkumar (2005) asserts that in 1997, there was a referendum call by the United Nations in order to set free the region of Kashmir in order to decide in line with the wish of citizens. However, this referendum call never materialized an aspect that has been attributed to the fact that the Indian government had feared the impact of the popular vote which would presumably support unification of the region with the Pakistan based on eminent religious grounds. However, majority of the Kashmir advocated for independence, a position that neither Pakistan nor India really supported. Consequently, about 30,000 persons have lost their lives within the span of the last 11 years. Indeed, Kashmir has been the nerve center of the persistent tension between Pakistan and India. This hostile situation poses a significant possibility of the world’s first direct war involving two states which are deeply anchored on nuclear weapons. Indeed, the historical context of conflicts due to the Kashmir region has been well documented within the context of Indian/Pakistan wars which dawned as at 1947. Nevertheless, at this particular point in time, both sides had good access to nuclear weapons Hirschfeld & Center for Naval Analyses (Alexandria, Va.). 2005). Indeed, since the Indian parliament building was attacked in December 2001, wide range of tension has grown tremendously. Indeed, India accused their counterparts, Pakistan of being in support of terror groups waging war against it. Nevertheless, the republic of Pakistan claimed that it had in persistent support for the liberation of Kashmiri as well as its freedom fighters. To the India, the said freedom fighters were indeed terrorists. This is a contrast as it seemed that one state’s terrorist is presumably another state’s freedom fighter. Consequently, since the December 2001 attack, Pakistan has been credited with arresting about 1,500 militants as well as another five illegal groups two of which are sectarian, two fighting the rules of Indian government in Kashmir while another one comprising of pro-Taliban group. Nevertheless, the Gen Musharraf has been on record pledging support to the liberation of Kashmir. In subsequent developments, majority of the people living around the border near Kashmir have been evacuating the region owing to the heavy military presence compiled by both sides, Pakistan. Indeed, immediately after the 2001 attacks, there rose clashes along the border region, virtually every night while about 2 people could be shot dead every night. In such an atmosphere comprising of growing tension and differences between the two sides, in May 2012, there was an advancement of million troops adjacent to the border such that any minute incidence could rekindle fresh fight. In these endeavors, nuclear weapons have been critical to perpetuated war periods (Riedel 2013). In particular, Riedel (2013) estimates that warheads in India range between 50-150 while the Pakistan ranges between 10 and 100. Similarly, there are relatively clear projections regarding systems of missile that are destined to deliver the weapons. For instance, in India, the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile commonly called the Agni with nuclear capability and test has been located. Indeed, this missile had the capacity to reach Karachi in approximately 14 minutes time. Similarly, the surface to surface category of missile called Prithvi with a range between 90 and 220 miles had the capacity to reach Islamabad I a span of three minutes. On the other hand, in Pakistan, a form of missile called Ghauri, an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile had the nuclear capability in production with a range of about 930 miles and could reach Bombay region in approximately ten minutes The current situation of nuclear weapon and related wars is particularly fuelled by the wide range of rhetoric between both sides. Indeed, officials within the two states, India and Pakistan have claimed their position not to use nuclear weapons first. However Lynch (2013) asserts that the states are perceived to be so keen in using the weapons in subsequent attacks. Given the close proximity between the two states, any instance of skirmishes would result in widespread death of millions of citizens in addition to other neighboring states. Despite Indian announcement for non-support for nuclear weapon manipulation in its territory particularly for the ‘first use case’, its counterpart, Pakistan has announced its continued support for the use of nuclear weapons leading to escalated political rivalry. In this context, a ‘no first use’ policy could be probably an important move towards disarmament. However, this policy has been long used as an excuse to constitute a wide capacity of ‘second use’. As a result, it becomes immensely impossible to distinguish between ‘second use’ and the ‘first use’ case. Consequently, following the increased tension, temptations too grows to arrive at once retaliation on first manipulation. There has been increasing tension and subsequent risks of war between the two states. Basically, it appears that India has been upgrading its events of nuclear attacks and claiming its pertinent follow up on the US and the west lead to engage in zero tolerance to ranging incidences of terrorist attacks. Indeed, India has been claiming the harboring of terror group by another state and forcibly threatening to engage military retaliation. Similarly, the Pakistan leadership has also failed with promises of democratic elections but only having accomplished a referendum which had been boycotted by majority of political parties for more than a year. Nevertheless, the main aim of any mission is to mitigate incidences of nuclear war between the two rival states (Lynch & National Defense University 2013).
Basically, it has been a major challenge in distinguishing ‘first use’ from ‘second use’ of nuclear weapons. However, the exiting policy advocates for ‘first use’ ban but allows ‘second use’. As stated earlier, this creates loopholes in the fight against nuclear weapons manipulation and subsequent instability caused by incidental war. In order to reduce nuclear weapon manipulation and incidental war amidst high level of political rivalry between the two states, the two should adopt a policy of zero tolerance to nuclear weapons manipulation in order to define the course of action for the two in the incidence of political difference particularly with regard to the location of Kashmir fuelled by political willpower. Similarly, as the west and US in particular advocate for zero tolerance to terrorism an aspect that Japan has been taking advantage of to manipulate its nuclear weapons, they should define the course of combat between the state and terror groups in order to sideline the use of nuclear weapons which have far-reaching effects on the entire population across the two states and its neighborhood. Policy adoption with zero tolerance to either ‘first use’ or ‘second use’ of the weapons should be put in place to avoid the controversy lying in the second and first use of the weapons.
Riedel, B. O. (2013). Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the brink and back. This resource is critical to this evaluation. The intervention of the international community in the war against nuclear weapon has been incidental and eminent across different periods of time. Essentially, the growth in rivalry between India and Pakistan has influenced not only the relation between the two states but rather the international community too. In particular, the War Between the States has led to the death toll rising between the two states as well as neighborhood. This resource therefore provides an instance of intervention of the west and America in particular, in advocacy for terrorist free zone an aspect that has been taken on the reverse by India to wage war against terror group leading to widespread manipulation of nuclear weapons. This has had adverse effects on a wider scale and a concern by not only their Pakistan counterparts but also the international community as indicated from the findings of this resource. Cirincione, J., Wolfsthal, J. B., & Rajkumar, M. (2005). Deadly arsenals: Nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. Washington, D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This resource puts into context the impacts of the nuclear weapons as far as the component and damage level between the two rival states is concerned. In particular, the resource analyzes the invasion of the Indian Parliaments and the aftermath of the invasion which basically entails retaliatory attacks to confront the terror groups in a move to restrain the terror groups from subsequent attacks on Indian Territory. Besides, this resource puts into context the heavy military invasion on the border between the state and Kashmir and its impact on the local population which has sparked a series of instability and subsequently drove the two states into a high tension condition where war could be fuelled under minimal if any forcible injections. Hirschfeld, T., & Center for Naval Analyses (Alexandria, Va.). (2005). The Impact of Nuclear Proliferation: Final Report. United States: Center for Naval Analyses (Alexandria, VA. In fact, the rivalry between Pakistan and their counterparts, India has been the route of high nuclear weapon manipulation, an aspect that has driven the region into crazy web of attacks. Essentially, this resource analyzes the implications of nuclear weapon use between the two states. Owing to the daunting impact, the resource also focus on the measures that has been taken upon this drastic development in order to cut down on the influex of wars driven by nuclear weapons by analyzing the missile range types and ranges between the two states an aspect that has pressed down to craving for policies that would lead to the abolishment of the nuclear weapon usage. However, as it further indicate, the adoption of ‘second use’ as opposed to ‘first use’ of nuclear weapon policy has been one of the detrimental factor that has perpetuated a rise in manipulation of nuclear weapons in a bid to combat terror incidences particularly for the Indian government fuelled by the differences between the two countries with regard to the interests of Kashmir. Lynch, T. F., & National Defense University. (2013). Crisis stability and nuclear exchange risks on the subcontinent: Major trends and the Iran factor. Washington, D.C: National Defense University Press. Basically, this resource raises a concern on the security and stability situation across the Indian sub-continent particularly due to the forcible manipulation of nuclear weapons. Essentially, the use of nuclear weapon in the country has been a major factor that has led to increased level of instability in the sub-continent. Besides, focusing on the Indian and Pakistan case scenario, the resource further intervenes in analysis on the epicenter of nuclear weapon manipulation and subsequent impacts on the entire Asian continent. In particular, the resource analyzes the Iran case as a probable cause of distorted regions as for as nuclear exchanges are concerned. The hostility between India and Pakistan as indicated by this resource however traces back to their political interests in the Kashmir region, an aspect that has driven the states into a series of confrontations and the need to use sophisticated force rendering nuclear weapons as the best option.