Skip to main content

That BOMB Again ...

Seymour Hersh has an enviable knack for generating controversy with everything that he writes. May be, he has what might be called the 'Hersh Touch', a latter day version of the Midas Touch.

His New Yorker article about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has predictably generated strong reactions from Pakistan.

Well, what can one expect if Hersh is basically saying that there's a secret argument between the Pentagon and the Pakistan Army whereby if things get out of hand in Pakistan and the Taliban are on the verge of getting hold of nukes, then Special Forces from the United States will swoop in and "secure" the assets.

It would be quite something for one nation to share the exact locations (Bunker No. 9) where each component of a discombobulated nuclear device is located with another nation no matter how friendly that nation might be.

On a related note, I recently read some scholarly piece about the history of India's nuclear posture ... how it slowly evolved from being a purely "peaceful" energy program to a dual-use program and which ultimately led to an overt nuclear weapon status.

There is nothing wrong of course in India being an overt, declared nuclear weapon state. It is never out of place to remind ourselves as well as the rest of the world that India is a nation of 1.2 billion people.

If tiny nations such as the U.K. and France — with about 55 million people each — can possess a complete triad of nuclear capability, then India certainly has the right to aim for the same.

India should ultimately have a true ICBM once the indigenous cryogenic stage is "proved" in the GSLV by ISRO.

The ATV program is now out in the open. Once an SLBM is successfully mated to the ATV, India will then have a nuclear triad.

Hopefully, everything will be in place by 2020.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Longforms and 'Best of 2017' Lists and Favorite Books by Ashutosh Joglekar and Scott Aaronson

Ashutosh Joglekar's books list. http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2018/03/30-favorite-books.html Scott Aaronson' list https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3679 https://www.wired.com/story/most-read-wired-magazine-stories-2017/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-best-books-we-read-in-2017/548912/ https://longreads.com/2017/12/21/longreads-best-of-2017-essays/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/21/world/asia/how-the-rohingya-escaped.html https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/artificial-intelligence-future-scenarios-180968403/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/01/20/citizen-kay https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-we-are-hunt-cancer-vaccine-180968391/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/dna-based-attack-against-cancer-may-work-180968407/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/22/dona...

Why Do We Have A Name?

Humans across religious, cultural and national differences all have names. At least all modern humans have this. I wonder if the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle or the tribes who live in the Nicobar Islands cut off from civilization since the last many thousands of years have a similar naming convention as the rest of us humans do. And we humans often choose to have system of naming that consists of a first name and a last name. the last name often indicates a person’s or a family’s occupation and remains the same from generation to generation. All the offspring of one family get the same last name as the parents — usually the last name of the father. In some cultures, the first names can be the same as that of the father too. In some cultures, the name of the village, and other names too get added to the child’s name and it grows rather long. But consider for a moment how it all would have started and taken hold among humans in deep antiquity. Humans would have acquired...

Ayn Rand Was Right

Do we exalt the John Galts and Howard Roarks among us or despise them? Do we admire the ultimate, self-centered and selfish capitalists or the selfless, self-sacrificing altruists? Oh sure there are the Martin Luther King, Jr.s and Mahatma Gandhis and Nelson Mandelas and Aung Sun Suu Kyis we like to point to as icons and worthy role models for our children. But look deeply and we find that we are obsessed with the wealthy. And who are the wealthy? Why do we let the Robert Rubins, Sandy Weills, Jakc Welchs, Jamie Dimons and their Wall St. brethren keep their millions? Because we consider that right and their right. Let alone the hedge fund people whose entire purpose is to become billionaires. How many people explicitly make life choices that will lead to a life of service -> not be a charlatan like Mother Teresa but just helping the underprivileged without trying to 'achieve' greatness by so doing. So Lance Armstrong and Greg Mortensen and the Evangelical Christ...