We have all become Death, the destroyer of worlds?

About this time in August, every year I have posted about nuclear weapons since re-starting this blog.  Why?  Simply put, I find the world's continuing fascination with nuclear weapons despite the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be shocking, awful, pathetic, and tragic.

Take a look at the following data:

Source

Every one of those is way more powerful than the relatively tiny bombs ("Little Boy" and "Fat Man") that the US dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the world has almost 16,000 of them!

Seriously, how many of those weapons do we need?

The bombing of Nagasaki; image source

In this op-ed titled "Nagasaki, the Forgotten City," the author writes:

About 74,000 people in Nagasaki died instantaneously or within five months of the bombing. Only 150 were military personnel. Another 75,000 people were injured, and these numbers do not count those who fell ill and died from radiation-related conditions in the decades to come.
Initially, purple spots appeared on their bodies, their hair fell out, and they developed high fevers, infections, and swollen and bleeding gums. Later, cancer rates surged. The survivors, known as hibakusha, lived in constant fear of illness and death.

Only 150 of the 74,000 were military personnel!  It is one thing if an earthquake or a typhoon caused utter destruction to property and life.  It is another when we humans manufacture such destruction.  So many of the horrors in history were results of human decisions.  What a tragedy!

To counter growing criticism of the bombings, American leaders established a narrative that the bombings had ended the war and saved up to 1 million American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan. (These postwar casualty estimates were far higher than pre-bomb calculations.) Most Americans accepted this narrative.

Of course, a patriot never, ever questions the government's narrative, as the war-criminal, scoundrel, Dick Cheney always reminded us!

In a related op-ed, the same author writes:

Immediately after the bombings, high-level U.S. officials publicly — and adamantly — rebuffed news reports about the bombs' horrific aftereffects. Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bombs, dismissed these reports as propaganda, even as he sent teams to measure radiation levels to ensure the safety of U.S. troops about to enter both cities. Later that year, Groves testified before the U.S. Senate that death from high-dose radiation exposure is "without undue suffering" and "a very pleasant way to die."

A"very pleasant way to die."  Read that again. And again.  The horror of that sentence seems worse than the deaths themselves!  

I will end this post with the famous words uttered by Robert Oppenheimer:

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.

Three neighbors with nuclear weapons ... surely nothing can wrong!

I have no idea whether Osama bin Laden chose 2001 for his ghastly plan because he knew that it would be the first year in office for a newly elected US President.  Given the evils that bin Laden schemed up, it is probable that the timing was intentional.

September 2001 was not the first time that the newly elected President was tested either.  On April 1st, only ten weeks into his presidency, Bush had to deal with the Hainan Island incident that became a gripping geopolitical news story for ten days.

I think about those incidents of April and September 2001 as I follow the news stories from India about the elections and now the upcoming inauguration of a new government led by Narendra Modi.  Modi, like Bush, comes with a couple of terms of governing experience in a state, and very little of international experience.  Bush was even quite proud of his regular guy life and how he had not spent time outside the US unlike those Democratic elitists.

Modi and his people have said and done enough to make Pakistan cautiously pessimistic.  As for the other nuclear neighbor,

Modi noted that Beijing would have to shed its “expansionist policies and forge bilateral ties with India for the peace, progress and prosperity of both nations.” India has in the past complained about China’s refusal to accept Indians from Arunachal Pradesh as Indian citizens and its insistence that Arunachal Pradesh is disputed territory.

Both Pakistan and China will closely watch every move that Modi makes over the next couple of weeks.

I would think that the US Ambassador to India will be one heck of an important position at this point, not only to keep track of the goings on, but also to play the role of an intermediary should situations arise.  Oddly enough, the Obama administration did not make it a high priority to nominate anybody even though the ambassador announced her retirement back in March?

 Kathleen Stephens, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, will serve as head of mission until a new permanent ambassador is nominated and confirmed.

With this oppose-everything Republicans in the Senate, who are also sensing control of the body come November, and with the summer lull fast approaching, the US might not have a permanent ambassador until the new year?  Why the low, low priority to that part of the world?  

A nightmarish scenario could be something along the following lines: crazy militants with ties to Pakistan strike terror in India, perhaps in Delhi or in Gujarat, in order to test the new prime minister.  Modi is pushed into retaliation by the very forces that worked hard to get him elected.  

Or, China tests Modi by placing a few military feet on India's side of the border.  Modi is pushed into retaliation by the very forces that worked hard to get him elected.  

O course, all the three have enough and more nukes to settle scores.  Don't be fooled into thinking that Mutually Assured Destruction always works as a wonderful deterrent--"states waging conventional wars might escalate to using nukes."

Why worry about this, right?  It will all be rosy as was September 10, 2001.

Tomorrow is another day!

The literal and financial nuclear news from India

First was the indictment of Rajat Gupta, which is not that much of a surprise given the widely reported links between him and the hedge fund heavyweight, Raj Rajaratnam, who as been sentenced to eleven years in prison for insider trading. After all, Gupta was no ordinary executive from India:

Few Indian executives have achieved the stature that Rajat Gupta held in global business, a position that made him an icon for many in India seeking to rise in the U.S. and elsewhere.
So Mr. Gupta's indictment Wednesday was greeted with a mix of surprise, sadness and even some anger in India's tightly knit business community. It also prompted some concern that his arrest might reflect poorly on Indian executives in general, though Mr. Gupta, the former chief executive of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., has lived for many decades in the U.S.

At the same time, apparently the Indian Government is also looking into a few of his dealings in India:

will probe the possibility of Gupta having contravened the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, involving, inter alia, his purchase of shares in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank (TMB).
The newspaper quotes unnamed ED officials as saying: “We suspect that control of shares in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank was in violation (of regulations) and had no approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Besides, some of his other financial transactions are also under the scanner.”

On a slow news day, I might have been captivated with those stories.

But, Condoleezza Rice upped the ante:

India had deployed nuclear-capable missiles on its western border and refused to budge under US pressure to hold any talks with Pakistan after the 2001 attack on its Parliament by terrorists from across the border, says former top American diplomat Condoleezza Rice.

It has always been suspected that India and Pakistan were on the verge of a war, and a nuclear war at that, soon after that horrific attack on the Parliament building.  But, to get details of that from an insider who was closely monitoring the developments, well, it is awfully shocking how terrible those few days were.

It is also fascinating to read about the kinds of strategies the US and other countries employed in their attempts to calm the Indians:

As there was no let-up in the tension between the two neighbours, Rice said the US and Britain joined hands and organised a series of high-profile visits to the two countries with the view that there would be no war as long as some important dignitary was in the region.
"Colin (Powell, the then Secretary of State) and Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, organised a brilliant diplomatic campaign that could be summed up as dispatching as many foreign visitors to Pakistan and India as possible.
"We reasoned that the two wouldn't go to war with high-ranking foreigners in the region. Every time they accepted a visit, we breathed a sigh of relief. We needed to buy time," Rice writes, recollecting the events of those days.
But the situation continued to deteriorate, she said, adding that by December 23 there were reports of troop movements as well as a disturbing one that India was preparing to move short-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to the Indian-Pakistani border.
"We reviewed the list of dignitaries who had been deployed to the region, searching for possible intermediaries through whom we could send messages to the adversaries, and agreed to reconvene the next day," Rice said.
Given the volatility of the situation in South Asia, Rice said she cancelled her Christmas vacation at her aunt's house in Norfolk Virginia and rushed to Washington the next day.
"By December 27 the reports were confirmed: India had, indeed moved nuclear-capable missiles to the border. Colin called Jaswant Singh, the Indian Minister of External Affairs, and asked that the two countries sit down and talk. The suggestion was flatly rejected," Rice writes.

Talk about dodging a bullet; phew!

Meanwhile, a few countries, including the US, have issued cautionary statements about travel to India, because of terrorism concerns.  The Indian government is not happy about this, naturally:

The Government has decided to protest after five countries - The US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - have issued advisories against travel to India during the festive season for security reasons.
The Government has protested saying such advisories are done to defame India. Minister of State for Tourism Subodh Kant Sahay said the matter will be taken up with appropriate authorities.

And students wonder why I tell them that the AfPakIndia region is way more dangerous than the Israel/Palestine issue!

Photo of the day: remembering Hiroshima and the A-Bomb

Caption at the source:
Doves fly by the gutted Atomic Bomb Dome, (seen in the background), preserved as a landmark for the tribute to the A-Bomb attack, following a speech delivered by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, marking the 66th anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing in Hiroshima on Saturday.

 The photo below shows the remnants of the building (Industrial Promotion Hall) which was capped by this dome:

More photos of the post-bomb Hiroshima here.

So many wars over the thousands of years humans have been on this planet  The Japanese included. So unfortunate.  Even more tragic is the reality that we haven't gotten rid of our instinct to bomb the shit out of life anywhere on earth :(

As Hemingway wrote:

There is nothing as bad as war. ... When people realize how bad it is they cannot do anything to stop it because they go crazy. 

A Hiroshima survivor's experiences

Nuclear bombs: never again

We remember those who died a torturous death, or endured unimaginable pain and suffering, as a result of the two nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The description of the photo on the left, from this source:

This boy, who was burned to death with his hands placed on his chest, leaving an impression of agony, is believed to have been a mobilized student exposed to the A-bomb in Iwakana township, which is about 700 meters from the hypocenter.
In those days, students who were in the 7th or 8th grade or in middle school were mobilized to munitions factories, farms, and national defense crews. They hardly did any learning at school. In the Urakami district of Nagasaki, there were several factories, including the Mitsubishi munitions, to which many students were mobilized. The death toll of mobilized students is unknown.
Regarding the disaster in Iwakawa township where this student was burned to death, the record of the Nagasaki A-bomb War Disaster reads as follows:
The instant the A-bomb exploded, almost all of the houses collapsed. The scattered pieces of wood and other debris covered the ground, and in some places they were heaped into drifts. Those who were outdoors all died, and those who were caught under the collapsed houses were screaming for help, and those who barely escaped frantically ran around. The town got dark, and, when visibility was regained, the collapsed houses started to smolder and then took fire. While there were mixed outcries of calls and for help, the town turned into a sea of flames."

Why we continue to make nuclear bombs that can wipe out life on the planet many times over is a tragic mystery to me.  Here is to hoping for peace.

You cannot sleep at night? Iran and Israel will keep you even more awake!

Here is how the NY Times words it:

[The] fuel now sits out in the open, where an air attack, or even a carefully staged accident or fire, could destroy it.
American and European officials will say little on the record because the guessing game touches on three of the most delicate subjects in the dispute: Whether Israel will strike the facilities and risk igniting a broader Middle East war; whether there is still time to stop the Iranian program through sanctions and diplomacy; and who is really in control of Iran and its nuclear program. ...

The strangest of the speculations — but the one that is being talked about most — is that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is inviting an attack to unify the country after eight months of street demonstrations that have pitted millions of Iranians against their government. As one senior European diplomat noted Thursday, an Israeli military strike might be the “best thing” for Iran’s leadership, because it would bring Iranians together against a national enemy.
It would offer an excuse some Iranians might sorely want to throw out the nuclear inspectors and renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would leave Iran in the position that North Korea is in: free to manufacture fuel or bombs without inspectors to blow the whistle.

Of course, Israel unveiled its latest weapon to warn Iran and others in the 'hood:

Israel’s Air Force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting Iran within their range.

Who wants to bomb Iran? Not me ... but, the list is growing :(

As I noted in an earlier post, we are counting down to the anniversary of Iran's 1979 theocratic revolution.  Apparently the government is already engaged in preemptive arrests of opposition activists.  Meanwhile, war cries at the Tea Party Convention (isn't a neat coincidence that the movie Alice in Wonderland is coming soon?)
Oh well .... One of the many flippant remarks that candidate John McCain made was the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

Foreign Policy lists the people leading this war chant.  Just stay away from them :)

Pakistan. What, me worry?

In a casual conversation about Pakistan, when I was heading back from the beach with my sister, she said that the US helps Pakistan too much--despite it being a haven for terrorists, and despite Pakistan's single-minded obsession with India.

I replied that at least it is better now compared to a decade ago, and definitely compared to when the Cold War was at its peak. That is the best I could do as a Polyanna!

At some point, the US will have to change its approach because, as I have blogged many times, Pakistan is one hell of a disaster.

So, how about this NY Times report:

The United States has accused Pakistan of illegally modifying American-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets, a potential threat to India, according to senior administration and Congressional officials.

This news item will play in India how?: as more ammo to anti-Pakistan emotions, more ammo to fight any peace-making with Pakistan, and as bargaining chip with the US in order to extract concessions somewhere. Oh well, when will we ever learn? Are we that much a slave to that darned military-industrial-complex?

If there is not enough to worry about, the same NY Times report adds:

[The] subtext of the argument is growing concern about the speed with which Pakistan is developing new generations of both conventional and nuclear weapons.

“There’s a concerted effort to get these guys to slow down,” one senior administration official said. “Their energies are misdirected.”

At issue is the detection by American intelligence agencies of a suspicious missile test on April 23 — a test never announced by the Pakistanis — that appeared to give the country a new offensive weapon.

Oh, finally:

The country’s nuclear arsenal is expanding faster than any other nation’s. In May, Pakistan conducted a test firing of its Babur medium-range cruise missile, a weapon that military experts say could potentially be tipped with a nuclear warhead. The test was conducted on May 6, during a visit to Washington by President Asif Ali Zardari, but was not made public by Pakistani officials until three days after the meetings had ended to avoid upsetting the talks.

If all these don't worry you enough, how about this news item:

A Pakistani court has lifted restrictions on A.Q. Khan -- a Pakistani scientist who admitted to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya -- Khan and his lawyer told CNN Friday.

Party on!!!

Have Pakistani Nuclear Facilities Already Been Attacked?

In a little-noticed article published last month in a West Point counterterrorism journal, a British academic pointed out that while the world waits for the kind of global public announcement of doomsday that would come from a Bond villain, Islamist militants in Pakistan have quietly launched at least three attacks in the past two years on military bases that may contain nuclear weapons.

That very comforting (yes, sarcasm here) paragraph is from The Lede at NY Times.
Now, this is a day after I read quite a few way too uncomfortable discussions in the new "AfPak Channel" in Foreign Policy.

Thanks! Now I can worry that much more about Pakistan.

64 Years later. Nukes haunt us.

Here is to hoping that we will never ever again use a nuclear bomb, as we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 64 years ago.

It is an unfortunate irony that news of Burma's interest in acquiring nukes with North Korean assistance comes at the same time.

I hope that President Obama will sincerely follow-up on, and implement, his grand statement in Prague earlier this year:

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."

Pakistan. Taliban. Al Qaeda. Nukes. Be afraid!

As much as I am relieved that finally Pakistan is being brought to the front and center of our attention, I can't but think: "where were all these people when even semi-literate people like me were yelling at our loudest that we need to worry about Pakistan?"
I suppose America was so blindered by its ideological framework that not only did we not recognize that Pakistan is even worse than the Israel/Palestine situation, we even continued to pour money into Pakistan.

Anyway, Professor Steven David writes in Foreign Policy that:

What then can the United States do to reduce the threat from Pakistan? Washington must first do more to mitigate the tensions between India and Pakistan, thus encouraging the Pakistanis to redirect their military away from the Indian threat and toward the more pressing dangers posed by the Taliban. The United States must be more creative in ways that might help the Pakistanis ensure the security of their arsenal, including assisting them with better command-and-control procedures and safer deployment options for their nuclear forces (thus avoiding a hair-trigger posture). For the long term, the United States can work to build up the Pakistani state, improve Pakistan's education system, enhance its economy (through the elimination of tariffs on Pakistani textiles), and subtly convince the Pakistanis that the moderate Islam for which the country is known is the best path.

Although all of these steps are necessary, none will end the threat of a Pakistani nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. So what the United States must do is confront the awful possibility that the Taliban or al Qaeda might one day get its hands on a Pakistani nuclear weapon. To prepare for that contingency, Washington must do more to learn where the Pakistani nuclear arms are located (to destroy or seize them), do a better job at preventing the smuggling of nuclear weapons, and, most horribly, prepare for the nightmare of losing an American city to a Pakistani bomb. That means issues such as continuity of government and public health plans must be made now, for "the day after." It also means that Washington must do better at determining the source of a nuclear explosion and think seriously about how to react if one occurs. Lashing out at Pakistan, especially if the regime was not behind the attack, makes little sense. Learning from the Pakistanis just how many weapons went missing, how it happened, and whether it could happen again might not be as emotionally satisfying as a counterstrike, but makes more sense.

Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Americans and Soviets recognized that a nuclear strike would be folly. The same is not true for the groups that are poised to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons. With luck, we may all survive this crisis. But that does not change the realization that an American city faces a far greater threat of nuclear destruction from a wayward Pakistani nuclear weapon than it ever did from a deliberate Soviet attack.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

So, the Middle East is going nuclear?

First, in order to counter Israel's nuclear bomb, the anti-Israel Arab world was keen on developing an "Islamic bomb". As India too got quite "explosive", Bhutto (Benazir's father) famously commented:"There's a Hindu bomb, a Jewish bomb and a Christian bomb," Bhutto once wrote. "There must be an Islamic bomb."

As Iraq got into that, Israel launched a brilliant attack that destroyed Iraq's key facilities. Much later, Pakistan detonated its nuclear devices to tell the world that it has arrived. A few months ago, something happened in Syria that nobody still talks about. But, speculation is that Israel wiped out some kind of a nuclear ambition that Syria had.

Yesterday (I think it was) as I was driving, I head on NPR that France was selling Saudi Arabia civilian nuclear power generating technology. Because, the Saudis want to prepare themselves for a world without petroleum--when they are sitting on the world's largest reserves that they can tap into for practically no cost at all.
I was not happy with all this talk about selling nuclear tech to the crazy guys in the Middle East. Because these are not democratic countries. We have no idea who the next ruler will be, and what kind of crazy things he will want to pursue.
And then I read this:

We are witnessing the beginning of a Middle East nuclear arms race. Iran's rivals do not want Tehran to gain the military, political, and diplomatic advantage that nuclear weapons convey. They are beginning the decades-long process of developing technologies to match Iran's capabilities. All of this is legal, by the way, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, nuclear weapon states are obliged to sell non-weapon states nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It is one of the two grand bargains in the treaty. And it could spell our doom.

Not all Middle East powers may see civilian nuclear programs as a hedge against Iran. But recent history is instructive. The burgeoning interest in nuclear energy perfectly coincided with a set of events in the summer of 2006. At that time Western efforts to rein in Iran's enrichment program began to fail. The United States was becoming further mired in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and appeared unable to stop an Iran now freed of its main regional rivals. Iran's leaders expanded their military influence through aid to Hezbollah in the Israeli-Lebanese war. Referring to the changing atmosphere in 2006, Jordan's King Abdullah II observed, "The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region." My translation: "After this summer, everybody's going for nuclear programs." Given the context, the connection to Iran's growing strength and spinning centrifuges is clear.

Now, instead of persuading Jordan and others to refrain from setting off a proliferation cascade in the Middle East, the United States is joining the Chinese, French, and Russian salesmen eagerly peddling the tools to do it.

At its core, this is a deeply flawed method for preventing proliferation. It continues the Bush approach of dealing with problems state by state, dividing them into good guys and bad guys, rewarding friends with nuclear treats and trying to deny them to enemies.

It does not work.

Great! after we are done with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, next decade will be all about uncontrolled chain reactions in the Middle East. Thanks. Now I can sleep well! Dr. Strangelove, any pills for me? :-)

Run! Now! Pak says nukes are safe!!!

It is way past time to worry when the prime minister has to go around trying to convince everybody that the nukes are safe! The good thing for us in America: we are far away from the chaos. The bad news: that is what we used to think until September 11, 2001!
The following excerpt is from The Hindu

Nuclear weapons in safe hands: Gilani

General Kayani vows to defeat terrorism at all costs

— Photo: AP

Tactical retreat?: Taliban members leaving Buner on Friday.

Islamabad: Pakistan Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani on Friday addressed growing international concerns on the Taliban’s advance towards Islamabad, saying the country’s defence is in “safe hands” and its nuclear programme completely secure.

“If anyone casts an evil eye on Pakistan, it will be over our dead bodies,” said Mr. Gilani while participating in a debate in the National Assembly or Lower House of Parliament.

I am not sure whether Gilani understands that the Taliban and al Qaeda does not care about the "dead bodies" :-(

Obama's worst Pakistan nightmare

In an earlier post on Pakistan, I wrote, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
After reading this NY Times piece, I want to revise that to "Be very, very afraid. Better yet, run for your life!"
Here are the final paragraphs from the NY Times piece:

WHAT OBAMA NOW inherits in Pakistan is a fully dysfunctional relationship between that country and the United States. Last summer, Bush signed secret orders allowing American special forces to run ground raids into Pakistani territory to root out not only Al Qaeda but also a list of other militants who could be targeted by either the C.I.A. or American military commandos. The first such raid, in September, provoked such a firefight and outrage in Pakistan that most other raids were suspended. But the reasons for the Pakistani government’s anger went beyond the concern that Bush was publicly violating Pakistani sovereignty. If American special forces were now authorized to come into the country to snatch or kill a range of militants, several Pakistani officials said to me, would it be very long before they tried to get the country’s nuclear weapons as well?
Though few in Washington will admit it, it is the right question. At the end of Bush’s term, his aides handed over to Obama’s transition team a lengthy review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluding that in the end, the United States has far more at stake in preventing Pakistan’s collapse than it does in stabilizing Afghanistan or Iraq.
“Only one of those countries has a hundred nuclear weapons,” a primary author of the report said to me. For Al Qaeda and the other Islamists, he went on to say, “this is the home game.” He paused, before offering up the next thought: For anyone trying to keep a nuclear weapon from going off in the United States, it’s our home game, too.

The coming complete breakdown in Pakistan

Musharraf faces impeachment proceedings. I can't imagine him exiting quietly if the impeachment process successfully goes through all the constitutional steps. I bet American, Indian, and Afghan leaders are charting out possible scenarios, and preparing themselves on diplomatic and military fronts.

While that is slowly unfolding, Der Spiegel reports on the mystery that the nuclear program of Pakistan is. In discussing it, the report observes, The Islamic Republic, flanked by crisis-torn Afghanistan and its eternal rival India, faces international criticism as a hotbed of Islamist violence. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently accused Pakistan of often being a "starting point for terrorism in Afghanistan." US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said that he would launch military strikes without consulting with the regime in Islamabad if he had precise information about the whereabouts of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil.Even the Bush administration, long soft on Musharraf, is now taking a tougher approach.

Along with complaints about Musharraf's treatment of the notorious AQ Khan, his wife asks, "why is it even called the "Islamic Bomb"? Was the American one a "Christian Bomb"? The Israeli a "Jewish Bomb"? Was the Chinese a "Buddhist" or "Atheist" bomb? Was the Indian one a "Hindu Bomb"? Right from the time it first became known that Pakistan had a nuclear program, the whole Western world, with America and Britain at the forefront, were up in arms and did all they could to prevent our success.
I think she raises good questions.

But, at the end of the day, it is not AQ Khan who needs to tell all--it is Musharraf. And, the tough ex-commando that he is, Musharraf will not utter a word. And, definitely, he will not provide the answer to the question that Jon Stewart asked him :-)

Pakistan: on the edge of a nervous breakdown

If the State Department had color codes like the one used by Homeland Security, then Pakistan will now be in the "severe" red status. In my earlier posts here, and here, I was concerned that the country might be heading even towards a military coup. The proposed impeachment of Musharraf certainly triggers the possibility of a coup. Well, before the end of August, we will find out whether Pakistan's democracy is alive and well.

Last night, I watched on C-Span a Brookings discussion on US foreign policy challenges this fall and beyond. Bruce Riedel talked about Pakistan. About How the military and the ISI might easily be tempted to play the India card, with a new twist: that India is working with Afghanistan, and using its embassy in Kabul to launch its anti-Pakistan activities, to squeeze Pakistan from all sides. If the country gets sold on this argument, then, say hello to mushroom clouds over the subcontinent.

Continental shift ends Indo-Pak conflict

We tend to forget that the India/Pakistan situation has the potential to become one nasty, dangerous, and horrible wars ever. This news (ha ha) from the Onion says it all:



Volatile India-Pakistan Standoff Enters 11,680th Day