Why Pakistan might turn to nukes

To be sure, there are plenty of efforts afoot to help India and Pakistan talk out – rather than duke out – their differences.

During a 16-nation Asian security summit that begins today in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Russian president Vladimir Putin is hoping to persuade both Pakistani President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to set out a road map toward de-escalating the conflict, and then, perhaps to work out a lasting solution. Later this week, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage will visit Islamabad and New Delhi, followed by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to bring along a report from the US Defense Intelligence Agency, detailing estimated results of a nuclear exchange – 12 million dead, drifting radiation, famine – and to underline the point that the use of nuclear weapons would prompt the US to sever its relations with and curtail economic aid to either country.

Albright and other scientists say that, while a war employing 50 or more nuclear weapons would entail a large amount of fallout, it would deliver little or perhaps no deadly amounts to neighboring countries, because of the likely location of the bombings, the direction of winds, and the blocking effect of mountains.

As Vajpayee and Musharraf left for Almaty, their rhetoric took a more productive turn. Musharraf reiterated that he had ordered all militant infiltration into Kashmir to cease and was "ready to meet anywhere and at any level." Vajpayee responded, "if we see the result on the ground of Gen. Musharraf's [promises], we shall certainly give it our serious consideration."

In addition, most analysts in India say that the hyperbolic rhetoric by Indian and Pakistani leaders, most notably the Indian official who called on the Indian military to "level their cities," has more to do with placating their own restive domestic audiences rather than articulating a sincere thirst for nuclear war.

But even if the two rival leaders do begin a rapprochement, some analysts worry that uncontrolled militants may launch an attack on India, particularly when peace talks seem closest, regardless of what their former patrons in Islamabad say.

"Even if Musharraf is serious about controlling the militants, some of these groups – especially Lashkar-e Tayyaba and Jaish-e Muhammad – are totally financially independent," says Suba Chandran, a research associate at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis in New Delhi. "They have ways to infiltrate India and enough ways to wage war in Kashmir without Pakistan's help. This is the real threat."

But J.N. Dixit, India's former foreign secretary, says that if Musharraf is truly against terrorism and a genuine ally of the US, then his decision is rather simple.

"If he is really against terrorism and India acts to crush those terrorist camps in his territory, then Musharraf should join us," he says. "That is the logic of what he says."

But if Musharraf does launch a nuclear assault on India, Mr. Dixit says, "I think our second-strike capabilities are quite sufficient to neutralize Pakistan for 50 years at least."

If the "unthinkable" nuclear war does erupt, observers say it is most likely to start sometime after Rumsfeld's visit this Sunday but before the arrival of the monsoon season, which reaches northern India in the first week of July. Monsoon rains would make the logistics of fighting and supplying a conventional war in mountainous terrain all but impossible – and thus greatly reduce the risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange.

The thing to watch in the next few days is body language and a change in rhetoric, says Edward Luttwak, an independent defense analyst based in Washington.

"Nobody launches a nuclear war willingly; they do it as a last resort because they are forced into it," says Mr. Luttwak.

"As long as these leaders are speaking in declarative sentences, such as 'We will level your cities,' then that shows these men still feel confident and in control, says Mr. Luttwak. "But if you see them start to speak in passive verbs, such as, 'It is out of our hands,' that is when it gets dangerous."

Page: 1 | 2