Nuclear parity or economics?

Nuclear parity or economics?

Nuclear parity or economics?
Yesterday
By Zahir Kazmi | From the NewspaperYesterday



WHO stirs the South Asian pot? Islamabad has allegedly the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world, fuels the South Asian arms race and blocks Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations at Geneva.

Satellite images in the recent Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) report indicate a fourth military reactor is coming up at the Khushab nuclear site.

Many must wonder why an economically fragile and internally weak Pakistan even contemplates games played by waning, resurging and emerging powers. Isn`t Pakistan`s existing arsenal enough to deter or destroy an adversary? A deeper look and some figures will show how perceptions are different to reality.

The reports on asymmetry in nuclear weapons arsenals since negotiations at the conference on disarmament started last month are geopolitically motivated. It is interesting to note that scratching Khushab`s surface set alarm bells ringing but the inauguration of India`s Tarapur nuclear fuel reprocessing plant only days before the ISIS report made no ripples. Why?

Western military industrial complexes fuel the economy, wield political clout and compel their governments to sell sensitive technology to eager and conflict-prone states. Non-proliferation norms do not come in the way of geopolitical and politico-economic interests. It is fair game.

A comparison of the fissile materials and warheads of nine states with nuclear weapons dispels the perceptions. The December 2010 International Panel for Fissile Materials report (IPFM) holds that the global stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) was almost 1,475 metric tons, worth more than 60,000 nuclear weapons. About 90 per cent of this material is held by Russia and the US. Their military needs are not compromised in the process.

Similarly, the global stockpile of plutonium is almost 485 tons and nearly half of it is used for weapons. The five permanent members of the Security Council hold almost 98 per cent of global stocks and stopped producing weapon-grade plutonium decades ago because the Cold War ended and their economic constraints dictated so. Though Israel, India and Pakistan are increasing their plutonium stock these are nothing compared to the P5`s.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US has about 9,400 nuclear warheads and it is yet to deliver on its promise to dismantle about 4,500. Russia possesses about 10,000, France 300, the UK 225, China almost 240, Israel 200, Pakistan 70 to 90, India 60 to 80 and North Korea fewer than five.

The recently concluded New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) bilaterally binds Russia and the US to reduce only the `deployed` strategic warheads to a mere 1,550 by 2018.

Smartly enough, the change is in deployment status and there is no talk of dismantling the weapons. Even if dismantling occurs, where will the warheads` fissile material go? Their insignificant reduction process is as good as the alleged appreciation in Pakistan`s stocks and warheads.

Recently, the US Department of Energy`s budgetary demands revealed that big-power nuclear programmes are swelling too. The department seeks an exponential 19.2 per cent budgetary increase for nuclear weapons programmes from $9.8736bn in 2010 to $11.782bn in 2012. Will American taxpayers question why the additional money won`t go towards healthcare, raising new jobs or as aid to poor countries?

As to the question of who has the fastest-growing plutonium-based programme in South Asia and why, the IPFM report says that India`s Dhruva produces 17.8kg and CIRUS reactor used to produce 7.1kg of weapon-grade plutonium every year. India has produced 630kg to date.

The Tarapur reprocessing plant has replaced CIRUS and has a 100-ton annual fuel reprocessing capacity. Besides this India can also get 95kg of weapon-grade plutonium — 13 warheads — every year from its eight power reactors that the International Atomic Energy Agency cannot watch.

It is estimated that Pakistan can produce somewhere between 7kg to 9kg plutonium per year from its existing Khushab reactors, which equals two warheads a year. The upcoming reactors will have similar production capacity once they are fully operative by 2014-2015. Pakistan is believed to have produced up to 100kg weapon-grade plutonium since 1998. This simplified comparison shows that the Indian giant will starve on what is a surfeit for the Pakistani dwarf.

Why should Pakistan and India pursue bigger arsenals if a single bomb is enough to inflict irreparable damage? To both security lies in their threat perceptions based on actual capabilities rather than each other`s intent.

Security paradigms cannot be quantified and hence no number of agreements on how many bombs is enough. India ostensibly pursues a 400-weapons-based triad. It is sensible to expect the more powerful states to scale down production and acquisition of force multipliers for others to take heed.

Nations do what it takes to address their mutual asymmetries and use propaganda to shape domestic and international opinion. The South Asian animus has grown since the US signed the not so civil nuclear energy agreement with India in 2006 and it has allowed New Delhi to expand its military power. It is not out of hate for Pakistan but primarily because India is a big market and can pay its bills.

So what should Pakistan do? It has taken steps to militarily deter India. Has it done so in economics? Pakistan has to take steps to pay its bills and create incentives for investors. The atomic commission and the nuclear establishment cannot be as helpful as economists, politicians, businessmen, academics and commoners.

The writer is a research scholar at the Department of Strategic & Nuclear Studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad.

zahir.kazmi@gmail.com