Raj Malhotra wrote:NRao
I did not catch the full interview but he generally said that weaponization was a political decision. Imp:- He said that 1974 just gave us general idea of nukes but only 1998 gave us info about weaponization which "may" be used to make weapons.
I think we need to clear the table for a second.
We need to keep the political stuff out of this discussion, if and when to weaponize is a political decision. True.
However, there are TWO BIG issues: the TN as a dud AND deterrence. Santhanam made BOTH these as issues.
Now, this interview, from what I can see, has not added anything of value to either of those two issues.
My point being that ANY article/interview/op-ed/etc either stating that the TN was a dud or was not one adds nothing to the discussion, as we post.
Now, we need to keep in mind that there are TWO issues:
1) TN as a dud - the proposed way out seems to be to assemble a blue-ribbon/graybeard/whatever group to assess and go from there. This is an open item
2) Deterrence. Is that an issue? WRT TN as a deterrence it will remain an open item AS LONG AS #1 is not resolved. BUT, deterrence does not have to come from TN alone.
#1 will never get resolved even with a blue ribbon panel. The panel will pass judgment on the methodology used, then the data obtained remains, etc, etc, etc.
While #1 can take 10 years to get resolved - IF it does, #2 can be resolved. And, in fact if there is deterrence why even bother with a TN?