Shyam Saran’s article “Weapon that has more than symbolic value” (May 4) is highly subjective, lacking in the understanding of the post-modern nuclear war science paradigm. He has not taken into account the long-term consequences of a nuclear conflict, nor referred to scientists’ findings. Yet he justifies India’s “peaceful” nuclear arms acquisitions as a strategic necessity. That could be a justification for Pakistan, after 1965 and 1971, but for New Delhi it has been avowedly “prestige” hunger that led it to waste its meagre resources on non-usable nuclear arsenal.

Just before Pokhran-2, I presented anti-nuclear arguments to the Prime Minister. “I agree these weapons have no use, but ek dhamaka to karna hai (need to fire a blast)” said poet Atalji. Mr. Sharan is justifying secret nuclear reactor deals in the name of strategic demands for weapons. In a nuclear conflict, there is no victor and vanquished.

Dhirendra Sharma,

Dehra Dun

Keywords: nuclear arms

More In: Letters | Opinion