In this section I attempt to answer the question I raised at the end of the previous one: What does it take to make one feel that possession of an atom bomb will make life better?

The Manhattan project was set up during desperate times. There was a war of utter destruction in progress, and life was cheap indeed. It was certainly not a time when anyone could be expected to deliberately refrain from making weapons of ever greater potential; although one should note the evidence that Werner Heisenberg did just that in Germany. The bomb was built to terrify all opposition into submission and when it was used it was a spectacular success. Japan surrendered in days.

The bomb now became a "weapon for peace" - as long as the U.S. possessed it, no other country would dare get up to any mischief. All would be happy.

Unless, of course, you did not agree with the U.S.'s plans for the world, or if you thought those plans might involve the undermining of your country. Then you could either try to ignore these weapons or you could go and get some for yourself. The latter path was taken by the Soviet Union, and then for their own reasons, by Britain, China and France. Each thought that they could thus secure the safety of their borders, and their influence beyond them.

The official line now was that there could be no more war because the only war possible would involve the annihilation of life on the planet; and surely no one was foolish enough to desire that. The fact that the world has so far not been blown up is held to justify this doctrine.

Indeed it has now found new adherents in India and Pakistan. In India, proponents of the bomb claim that we need it to forestall armed aggression by either China or Pakistan, both fears finding a common focus in the problem of Kashmir. Pakistan has long instigated and supported terrorism in that state (although they call it a freedom struggle, the tactics adopted go too far beyond fighting the Indian army to merit that honour). A part of Kashmir lies also in Chinese hands and India once fought a war with China on the northern fringes of Kashmir. All this combines to create a fear of a future war where Kashmir will be ripped away from India by one or both of these countries. China is of course a full-fledged nuclear power, and Pakistan's secret program to acquire nuclear weaponry has not been particularly secret. Therefore, we are told, we also must possess them.

Another argument is made on the grounds of national pride. Why should five countries arrogate to themselves the right to sole possession of nuclear weapons? Why should India resign itself to being a sixth fiddle to these ones? The hypocrisy of countries who have built up nuclear arsenals over many years, but now pose as the guardians of the world from nuclear disaster, is certainly clear. The case is made that these countries will never destroy their weapons due merely to the pleading of others. India cannot hope to further the cause of disarmament unless it also has something to give up. National pride is also invoked in the following argument - that our new possession will free us psychologically. No longer bent under the weight of a feeling of inferiority, Indians will work together with a new zeal for their motherland.

If India's desire for atom bombs springs, officially, from three sources, Pakistan's arises solely from its rivalry with India. Fear of being absorbed into India appears to be intense. Thus the first nuclear explosion by India in Pokhran, in 1974, triggered off their own nuclear weapons program; and the latest tests in India supposedly forced them also to blow up a few. Indeed, they felt compelled to have one more test than India, thus sticking to the pattern of escalation that has throughout been the hallmark of the nuclear arms race.

According to the logic of deterrence, we should all be happy at this escalation, for if nuclear weapons bring peace it must follow that more of them bring more peace.

• Nuclear Issue (A document giving the BJP view)