'You cannot imagine today which threats are possible in future'

A Delhi-based newspaper argued that when all the reactors were without safeguards and were available to link to India's weapons program, India, being a responsible State with self-restraint, didn't make a large number of weapons. Now, with 65 per cent gone, India can very well carry on with 'credible minimum deterrent'. So when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says there will not be any capping of the weapons program and India will continue having weapons that come under definition of credible minimum deterrent, he is correct...

I am not talking of the PM but when a scientist, Dr Srinivasan, says that there is no capping, does he know the size [of India's strategic program]?

In future?

Does he know what is the size at the moment? How can he [Dr Srinivasan] know that?

Doesn't he?

No. Can he predict to me what the size [of India's nuclear weaponry] should be in future keeping in mind the possible threats in future?  

May be this government envisages threat scenarios which is not as intense and as acute as you might. That should be termed as difference of opinion...

Why should there be any difference of opinion? Let us take one example. If, despite all the efforts of the international community Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, that's a new element in our threat scenario. We know that Pakistan and Iran have worked together in their [Iran's] clandestine program and we can not say that they will not work together in future also. We just cannot say that. So, what is that threat scenario?

We have the doctrine of No First Use, which means that we have to accept some damage if our enemy is the first one to strike. And, then we will have to respond to it in a massive way. For that massive response if you have both, say, Pakistan and Iran, what is the number of weapons you require? And what is the number of thermal weapons you require and what is the number of nuclear weapons you require?

That number should be such that it deters them from launching a first strike. These are the threat scenarios and you cannot imagine today which threats are possible in future.

But then you have to start with the premise that this government is not anti-national or not patriotic enough?

No, no, certainly not. I don't accuse anybody lacking in national interest.

Since 1947, India has been talking of disarmament, and India believes and Nehru said many times that India believes in peaceful nuclear energy, and India is known as a peaceful country. In the background of that history, it is possible that the prime minister has kept India's poverty in mind while going in for this deal. Second, he might be trying to curtail investment in arms.

You are not right. In the latest budget he has given more money to defense. And, I must say that I don't agree at all with Nehru's philosophy in the nuclear field.

I am arguing that this deal will be acceptable to those who think that let more money come into development, agriculture and in economy than going in weapons.

We have to try and balance the economic program and national security. If you don't have national security where is your economic progress? One has to be very clear on these issues. And people who say that we don't need this much [nuclear weapons] and we don't need that much are talking in the air. There has to be a very well-thought out program, both with regard to the civilian side and the strategic side. But, I have voiced my concerns. If the government says that 'No Mr Mishra, you are wrong. We have taken care of all future threat scenarios,' fine. Go ahead and do it. We will know in future if you have taken into consideration [possible threats] or not. I may not be there.

In the picture: US President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after their summit meeting in New Delhi on March 2, 2005

Also See: The Indo-US nuclear tango