Indian military HQ, Karwana, Haryana, India
Prabhu Purie, the Foreign Minister, and Chandra Reddy were on the line from Delhi with Hari Dixit and Chief of Army Staff, Unni Khrishnan. ‘We have to kill his command and control centre,’ said Hari Dixit.
‘That is Chaklala, sir. Hamid Khan’s bunker,’ said Unni Khrishnan.
‘Then we must strike it.’
‘You could only be sure of success with a nuclear weapon.’
‘Mani, what is your view?’
‘Can’t we bring in the Americans or the Russians and keep our own slate clean?’
‘Chandraji?’
‘He’s made big blunder. My guess is he didn’t intend to use multiple warheads. That was a cock-up. The missile we shot down was heading for the airfield. The one we failed to get was heading for the military headquarters. He would not have targeted the market. He has killed his own people. He could go one of two ways. Admit it and surrender. Or carry out another strike immediately to dampen the impact of this one. My guess is he’s going to strike again.’
‘Inside or outside Kashmir?’
‘Impossible to say.’
The Rose Garden, The White House, Washington, DC
Question: President Hastings, the statements so far from the State Department and the Pentagon have not made clear where your support lies — with India or Pakistan. Could you clarify your position, please?
Hastings: I want a ceasefire then negotiations. But I want to say something about conflicts, and this one in particular. The grievances which caused this conflict go back to the partition of India in 1947. It is not a forward-looking issue, like the issues which tied us up during the Cold War. That was about the future, whether the political and economic system in the Western democracies or that of the Soviet Union was the more powerful one. The conflict between India and Pakistan is about the past. They have no issue with each other over their political systems and the basic concepts of democracy. This is not Pakistan fighting against the repression of Muslims in India as a whole. Or India defending Hindu rights in Pakistan. This war is about a piece of land called Kashmir. It’s run by India, but claimed by Pakistan and it should have been sorted out as part of the overall independence deal, but it wasn’t and that’s why I’m standing here now.
It would be farcical if the American people were drawn into any kind of war over Kashmir, and we have to bear that in mind. A nuclear weapon might have been used, but the cause of the conflict remains the same.
Question: Sir, we’re getting reports that Pakistan has launched a missile strike on the city of Srinagar in Kashmir. It was conventional, but the Indians were seconds away from retaliating with a nuclear weapon.
Hastings: Yes. I saw those reports as I was coming here. Many innocent Indians have been killed and it might help me answer the first question, about which side I support. America and the American people support democracies. I spoke directly to General Hamid Khan about an hour ago. It is not my practice to talk with dictators, but these were exceptional circumstances. If you remember, President Clinton met directly with one of the former military rulers during his visit to South Asia in 2000. General Khan wanted my support in bringing about peace. I told the General that we needed an unequivocal declaration of a ceasefire. Hamid Khan’s statement, which many of you might have heard, fell far short of that mark. Since then, he has launched a missile strike on Kashmir. It seems to me that we have a nightmare scenario of a desperate military dictator in a bunker with his finger on the nuclear button. In India, we have an elected Prime Minister, working with his democratically appointed ministers and institutions.
Question: Mr President, could you clarify—
Hastings: Sorry, Clarissa, for interrupting, but I want to add one detail, to give you an example of how this thing has played out over the last few hours. We are working with the Indians through normal channels, their ambassadors here and at the United Nations and their officials in Delhi. The Pakistani officials, on the other hand, say they have received no instructions from Islamabad. That situation speaks for itself, Clarissa.
Question: Yes. Thank you. Russia seems to be playing it neutral.
Hastings: Yes. I have spoken to President Gorbunov. We offered to help each other in whatever way would bring about peace quickest.
Question: But China seems to be taking a different line.
Hastings: Yes. And we expect it to. China is a long-standing ally of Pakistan’s. It has a problem with India over Tibet. There is also healthy competition for these two great nations in their race for modernization. I know Joan Holden has been speaking to their Foreign Minister, Jamie Song, in Beijing and I don’t see a problem with this. You are all probably more familiar with the way we worked with Russia in Europe and the Middle East. Our alliances might be different, but we are all working towards peace.
Question: Mr President, can you envisage any circumstances in which the United States will become militarily involved in this conflict?
Hastings: Only to save lives. And, I’m really sorry, I’ve just had a message that the Indian Prime Minister needs to speak to me urgently. I have to go.
RAF Upper Heyford, Gloucestershire, UK
The suggestion of using the F-16 multi-role combat aircraft either from Incirlick in Turkey or one of the bases in the Gulf was dismissed in less than fifteen minutes. The host governments all had significant Islamic opinion to take into account. This strike was not worth upsetting it.
The second option, of using F-18 Hornets on board the 102,000 tonne USS John C. Stennis in the Gulf of Oman, was thrown out equally quickly. The aircraft’s range was 1,600 kilometres and they could have completed their mission by refuelling 500 kilometres from the carrier and again on the way back, using tankers from Kuwait and Turkey. But with both options, American pilots’ lives would be put at unnecessary risk. The aircraft would be over hostile territory, and liaising with Indian pilots who might have to provide cover would be impossible.
The aircraft chosen for the mission was a single American B-52 bomber flying out of RAF Upper Heyford in England. It carried twenty BGM-109 Conventional Airborne Cruise Missiles (CACMs) with special warheads. For four decades, the B-52 had been the mainstay of the American bomber force and when it was due to be finally scrapped in 2038 it would have been in service for eighty-two years. Technology had advanced tenfold since it flew its first mission. The B-52 was adapted accordingly and it remained the most versatile bomber in the American order of battle.
Shortly before it took off from the base in Gloucestershire, the crew saw the latest 116 Keyhole spy satellite photographs of the Rawalpindi cantonment area, under which Hamid Khan operated from the Pakistani war room. Throughout the night, other equally sensitive satellites had passed over the area, with optical equipment which cut through the darkness.
They also had access to special Doppler radar imagery gathered by a stealth AWACs aircraft flying high above Rawalpindi. It was the first time the United States had used the facility in a real conflict situation. Known as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) it could produce three-dimensional images of objects as far as 45 metres below ground or sea. Trials were as yet incomplete, but the implications were already enormous. Not only would it allow surveillance inside enemy bunkers, such as suspected nuclear facilities in North Korea or biological weapons bunkers in Iraq, it might also make the submarine, particularly those carrying nuclear missiles, a far more vulnerable weapon of war.