Death wish or stress test?

Listen to article

In the past three years, humanity has seemed to teeter on the brink of extinction. When the war in Ukraine began, many of us struggled to visualise the full scope of the threat we faced. Any miscalculation could have brought the war to Europe, where two nuclear powers sit. Further escalation could have led to an extinction-level event — once the nightmare of the Cold War — by dragging the US directly into war with Russia.

Last month, we witnessed another episode of extreme brinkmanship, where — compelled by the desire to maintain its muscular image — a populist government afflicted with a shrinking mandate risked full-blown war with its neighbour. India's policy decisions these days seem to have little to do with rationality. It often convinces itself that it can offset the consequences of its actions through a mix of diplomacy, espionage, propaganda and wealth. Since few have dared to challenge the incumbents in New Delhi, their incremental brinkmanship (2016, 2019, 2025) did not come into sharp relief — until now. But the fact is that had President Trump not intervened, or had Pakistan's conventional defences not held, we could have been trying to survive in a nuclear wasteland.

Now, yet another gift that keeps giving: Israel's incremental belligerence. First Gaza, then Lebanon, Syria, Yemen — and now Iran. In Iran, it seeks to destroy its nuclear programme and, if possible, overthrow the state. Israel now claims to have destroyed most of the nuclear infrastructure above ground, but lacks the bunker-busting munitions to destroy the underground facility at Fordow. That is why it urges the US to enter the fray.

This is a curious development, because until recently, Israel had no shortage of bunker busters. Consider the indigenously developed Spice systems and Rafael's Rocks family of weapons. For instance, the MPR-500 is a smart bomb designed to wreak havoc underground. In Gaza, while claiming to destroy Hamas's fortified underground network of tunnels, Israel regularly used 5,000-lb GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-busting bombs — originally deployed during Operation Desert Storm.

A Jerusalem Post report dated 28 September 2024, titled 'Inside Israel's Operation: Step-by-Step Breakdown of How Nasrallah Was Eliminated' by Amir Bohbot stated: Netanyahu gave the go-ahead for the targeted assassination that would shake the Middle East and the Arab world. The Air Force command gave the green light to arm aircraft with bunker-busting bombs.

You're telling me that after invading a potentially nuclear-capable country, Bibi Netanyahu suddenly realised, "Oops, we didn't check the depleted inventory"? That would be like Elon Musk taking you to Mars and suddenly realising he forgot to arrange water or oxygen for the colony. What is going on? Bibi can be accused of many things, but such debilitating oversight is not one of them.

When you listen to Israeli hawks in the media, you realise they're talking about altogether different weaponry. They want the US to use low-yield nuclear weapons. You may rightly ask: Israel is a nuclear state — why would it need another country's help when it could act alone? Because it has long maintained a façade of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. In fact, the Israeli nuclear programme is the Middle East's worst best-kept secret.

Even so, since when has Israel cared about international law or diplomatic niceties? The objective is clear: to drag the US into a murder-suicide pact — at least diplomatically. Once it becomes America's war, Israel cannot be held solely accountable for starting such a large-scale conflict.

But revisit the unofficial ask: low-yield nukes are still nukes. Use them to destroy a nuclear facility, and imagine the ramifications — not only for the country being attacked, but for the international order. A nuclear incident could trigger a chain of events that draws other nuclear-capable great powers into the fight. That is the very definition of a world war.

It is as if the human race has suddenly developed a death wish. Why else would anyone risk nuclear war if they and their people want to live?

Given that the triggers for such wars are usually a mix of national anxiety and rage over human loss (Pahalgam, 7 October), where leaders ostensibly vow to avenge such deaths and ensure nothing like it happens again — how can they not see that the consequences of their actions could lead to far wider devastation, killing far more people and destabilising global security?

How many millions would have died if India and Pakistan had turned nuclear? Do these missile exchanges between Israel and Iran not kill people on both sides? Imagine the fear and anxiety among civilians across the region. I'm not preaching. I'm asking legitimate questions. Do these leaders not mind the annihilation of the human race? If they don't — why?

It is easy to explain this fatalism within the Abrahamic faiths. All three major monotheistic religions share a similar eschatology. While the timing of the end is still a matter of debate in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, many believe that the three millennia allotted to human existence are over, and therefore the end is nigh. Despite considerable wiggle room, Muslims face a different dilemma: since no specific date is given, many feel free to see the end whenever they want. After every few centuries, they find themselves in a bind and start thinking the end is near — ergo, Al-Qaeda and ISIS's end-times wars.

This may explain the tragedy of monotheists. But why are people of polytheistic or pantheistic orientation — like many Indians — not afraid to risk it all?

That's when you realise that religious fanaticism might be one factor driving brinkmanship, but eschatology is not the sole reason. We don't know what is in Bibi or Modi's hearts, but we know that they excel at exploiting religiosity and the fanaticism of division to stay in power. To do so, they also promise their people a resurrection of golden past glories in a modern setting.

But in Bibi's case, it is clear that even that promise is a means, not an end. As I've mentioned before, he faces many criminal charges — some so petty that mentioning them alongside a prime minister's title seems insulting. In India's case, it is apparent that its ruling elite wants China and America to start a war that will weaken both, allowing India to silently claim the superpower crown.

If I weren't Popperian in outlook, I would have thought that history either seeks the destruction of humankind or intends to subject it to a stress test. But even so, my paranoid mind — shaped by science fiction and conspiracy thrillers — keeps pushing me in that direction.