An ancient anecdote, from
the time of the Cold War, has it that a
politician, physicist and astronomer were at a
party, when the first two got into an argument
about just how powerful the world's nuclear
weapons were, and the right strategy for cutting
stockpiles. They argued back and forth, and
finally the physicist said, "Today's stockpiles
are enough to destroy the world 30 times over".
Before the politician could respond, the
astronomer, feeling left out of the conversation,
stepped in and said, "Ah, but
even if that were to
happen, it is not as if Earth is a major planet
anyway."
Three non-Abrahamic powers now
possess nuclear weapons (China, India and
North Korea). It is very likely that the number
will quickly become five (including South Korea
and Japan) in the very near future. Thus there
will be a geographical continuum of nuclear states
from Japan to Pakistan, which when Russia, Iran
and Israel are added, becomes the atomic crescent.
If you were considering the idea of building a
nuclear shelter, now would be a good time to
start, although as the physicist observed above,
the exercise would prove pointless.
The
fourth horseman The weekend test of an
apparent nuclear weapon by North Korea brings the
fourth horseman to the apocalyptic party that the
world has now become. Taking a look at the
established powers - the United States, Russia,
the United Kingdom, France, China, India and
Pakistan - it is clear that adding Iran, Israel
and North Korea to the mix provides a new impetus
to understanding both the strategic impact and the
likely provocations that would draw the world into
nuclear conflict.
In my view, the three
states with the greatest potential for launching
first strikes are Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
Add a United States that misunderstands its role
in the world and the effect of its policies, and
the four horsemen of the apocalypse, as the Bible
so lovingly puts it, are in place.
It is
interesting that the Biblical references to the
characteristics of the four horsemen suit today's
lineup. North Korea is clearly Famine, as its
people are starved while its leaders scramble
desperately for survival. The US is War, as its
leaders have waged unnecessary conflicts and
brought forward the day of reckoning. Between
Pakistan and Iran, one can choose Pestilence and
Death depending on how many nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons one believes the respective
states possess and the likelihood of their using
these weapons. For example, Iran suffered
dramatically from Saddam Hussein's biological and
chemical weapons, and would likely prefer to be a
first user. Pakistan has a significant
conventional-arms disadvantage against both Iran
and India, and would hence use such weapons of
mass destruction whenever threatened.
A
major difference in the scenario above against the
Bible's is that the four horsemen are arranged
against one another, rather than riding together
against the rest of the world. One could argue
that from the US perspective, it is China that is
the fourth horseman, as it supports the existence
of North Korea and has been a key exporter of
technologies to both Iran and Pakistan (the
latter's nuclear weapon is of Chinese design, and
this was then "shopped" to Iran by Abdul Qadeer
Khan). However, as I wrote in previous articles
[1], China has no economic reason to indulge in
war and is more likely to take the side of the
West whenever conflict does break out. In
contrast, a proselytizing United States is a
different matter, and presents a significant
threat to the rest of the world.
North
Korea also brings to the table a different
perspective on war. Its leadership is highly
centralized, and its people have little or no
voice in government. The website of the official
Korean Central News Agency on Saturday showed the
country being prepared for a large-scale buildup
of the army, using the idea of songun,
which the KCNA explains thus:
Songun ... is an idea of
giving importance to the army and military
affairs as it clarifies the position and role of
the army in the revolutionary struggle for
independence. Juche idea [self-reliance]
considers it as its basic requirement to fully
realize the independence of the popular masses
and the songun idea indicates the way of most
thoroughly meeting this requirement of the
juche idea ... Songun idea
overcame the limitations of the preceding
theory, which viewed the conditions of the
social revolution with main emphasis on its
objective and economic factors and clearly
elucidated the profound truth that revolution
means army-building and vice versa. A rifle
serves as the most treasured sword to be held
tightly in the whole course of revolutionary
struggle to realize the independence of the
masses.
The last sentence says it all
- North Korea will use its nuclear weapons as a
bargaining chip, with sales likely to the highest
bidder whenever it needs extra money. There will
be no economic reforms, and the world will in
essence have to pay a tax to the North Koreans to
keep the current leadership dynasty in power.
This is not dissimilar to the Islamic
powers mentioned above. In Iran, the fading embers
of the Islamic Revolution have forced the mullahs
to fight a reactionary battle to reclaim center
ground, while in Pakistan the military continues
to fight for its central position in a landscape
where people often get seemingly erroneous ideas
of democracy and freedom of expression from
neighboring India.
In all three countries,
the case is strong that nuclear weapons will be
used to keep the establishment in place, mainly by
focusing people's minds on illusory external
threats. As I wrote in a past article [2], this is
not different from the strategy used by all Arab
dictators to stay in place; the only variation is
that while Arab dictators are preserving their
personal wealth, dictators in North Korea, Iran
and Pakistan are trying to save their lives.
Four-play Using the edicts of
game theory, just how will the situation pan out?
Before considering the Nash equilibrium [3]
confronting the likes of North Korea, Iran and
Pakistan, it makes sense to line up natural allies
and foes within the shadow of the nuclear
umbrella.
Israel and India, confronting an
Islamic menace on multiple fronts, constitute the
first pair. To them, we can add the likes of the
UK and Russia, as these countries also face
similar problems, and have the same strategic
interests. Russia holds no candle for Israel, but
will find itself in sore need of a reliable ally
when confronted with a nuclear Iran that could
imperil its entire southern flank.
Pakistan and Iran make natural allies, but
are funded by different sources. While the former
has benefited from Sunni munificence, the latter
is by definition a Shi'ite power. Whether an overt
combination of Israel with India would push these
two together is a matter of some debate, but since
I don't expect any of the combinations to be
public anyway until there is an actual conflict,
it also stands to reason that the Sunni-Shi'a
divide will keep Pakistan and Iran at loggerheads.
This will force Pakistan to consider an alliance
with North Korea, whose ballistic missiles
underpin its delivery systems in any event. Iran
will have to chomp down on its Shi'ite tendencies
to join this alliance.
South Korea and
Japan are natural allies, even after considering
their bloody history. At a stretch, they could get
into an alliance with China, as the three
countries have shared economic interests in their
strong export-oriented industries. South Korea and
Japan are among the biggest investors in China,
and have underpinned the boom in various strategic
industries for China. This provides the nucleus of
a stable alliance, although Japan's new prime
minister, Shinzo Abe, will have to eat humble pie
to effect the combination.
That leaves
France, and I believe the country has no option
but to join either Russia or the US. It is more
likely to join the latter.
Americans go
home I have left the last of the four
horsemen, and admittedly the one whose malcontent
policies started it all, to the last. The United
States may not realize this today, but the
existence of the crescent mentioned above in
essence destroys its claims to be the sole
superpower. The US can no longer wage unilateral
warfare against any country within the
above-defined crescent, because the needs and
reactions of natural allies need to be taken into
count. Both Iran and North Korea are capable of
gambling - and desperate enough to do so - that a
first strike against the US will not lead to
nuclear retribution as its neighborhood will be
damaged as well. The US cannot risk nuclear
fallout on Japan and South Korea, nor on Saudi
Arabia and Israel.
A country that cannot
stomach civilian losses and is limited from
engaging in massive retribution will in essence
have to rethink its strategic paradigm. In a
matter of a few years, the US will go back to
defending itself domestically from hostile forces,
rather than projecting its power globally.
It is the end of the American century.
Notes 1. China and India in World War
III, Asia Times Online, July 26. 2.
Garfield with guns, Asia
Times Online, September 2. 3. According to Wikipedia, "In game
theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John
Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a kind of
solution concept of a game involving two or more
players, where no player has anything to gain by
changing only his or her own strategy
unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy
and no player can benefit by changing his or her
strategy while the other players keep theirs
unchanged, then the current set of strategy
choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a
Nash equilibrium."
(Copyright 2006 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
