Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

Nuclear Politics in India & Pakistan - Musa Khan Jalalzai, DT
Some gems
Pakistan’s nuclear relations with China and India’s nuclear relations with the US, Russia and Australia indicate that both the states are preparing for a limited nuclear war in the near future. . . . India has also itself given the right to use nuclear weapons if its territory is attacked by a nuclear state {duh, :rotfl: }. . . . Pakistan developed multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) :rotfl: for its ballistic missiles.
dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Post by dinesha »

Pakistan is eyeing sea-based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say-The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi ... story.html
...
For more than a decade, Pakistan has sent signals that it is attempting to bolster its nuclear arsenal with “tactical” weapons — short-range missiles that carry a smaller warhead and are easier to transport.

Over the past two years, Pakistan has conducted at least eight tests of various land-based ballistic or cruise missiles that it says are capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Last September, Sha­rif, citing “evolving security dynamics in South Asia,” said Pakistan is developing “a full-spectrum deterrence capability to deter all forms of aggression.”

The next step of Pakistan’s strategy includes an effort to develop nuclear warheads suitable for deployment from the Indian Ocean, either from warships or from one of the country’s five diesel-powered submarines, analysts say. In a sign of that ambition, Pakistan in 2012 created the Naval Strategic Force command, which is similar to the commands in the air force and army that oversee nuclear weapons.

“We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability,” said Shireen M. Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a hawkish Pakistani-government-funded think tank.
..
..
In 2011, nongovernment experts interviewed by The Post estimated that Pakistan had built more than 100 deployed nuclear weapons. Now Pakistan’s fourth plutonium-production reactor is also nearing completion, and while most assessments of the country’s warhead inventory have not changed much in recent years, analysts say Pakistan continues to produce weapons material and develop delivery vehicles, positioning itself for another spurt of rapid growth at any time.

“They are going to make as much fissile material as they possibly can and keep making as many warheads as they possibly can,” said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leading Pakistani nuclear expert and physicist.
...
..
Pakistan has repeatedly tested its indigenously produced, nuclear-capable Babur cruise missile, which has a range of 400 miles and can strike targets at land and sea, military officials said. In 2011 and last year, Pakistan also tested a new tactical, nuclear-capable battlefield missile that has a range of just 37 miles.

“This is the miniaturization of warheads,” said Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic studies and nuclear expert at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

Maria Sultan, chairwoman of the Islamabad-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, an organization with close links to Pakistani military and intelligence officials, said the short-range missile is designed as a signal to India’s military.

“We are saying, ‘We have target acquisition for very small targets as well, so it’s really not a great idea to come attack us,’ ”
Sultan said. “Before, we only had big weapons, so there was a gap in our deterrence, which is why we have gone for tactical nuclear weapons and cruise missiles.”

Still, even a limited use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield would likely trigger a major retaliatory strike from India, said Manpreet Sethi, a senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies.
..
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

India’s ex-SFC Lt Gen. B.S. Nagal on nuclear doctrine:
On No First Use (NFU):

The disadvantages of the NFU policy need deliberation. Firstly, NFU implies probable large scale destruction in own country, whilst a feeble argument can be made of limited strikes by the adversary on Indian forces in the adversary’s territory.

Secondly, in India there is hardly any debate on security policy issues, much less on the NFU policy. Inputs indicate that the Indian public in totality is not in sync with the policy. Some call it a cause of concern; others call it ‘the Panipat Syndrome’ of allowing the enemy to defeat us on our own soil. On the political plane, it was not put to public vote as India does not follow a system of referendum. The NDA government released the NFU policy in January 2003. The loss of the election by the NDA in 2004 did not politically validate the policy.

Thirdly, the nation has not been educated on the devastation of nuclear strikes and is psychologically not prepared to be destroyed.

Fourthly, to fight a war with constraints which jeopardise the future of a country is also morally wrong; no leadership has the right to place its population at peril without exhausting other options and opting only for NFU.

Fifthly, NFU policy cannot conduct a first strike on the adversary’s counterforce targets, thus allowing the adversary full capability to attrite own capability. In the current environment of mobile system on land and SSBNs at sea, the probability of destruction of the adversary strategic assets will be extremely low or negligible in a second strike, this therefore limits own retaliatory nuclear strikes to counter value targets, once again a moral dilemma.

Sixthly, NFU policy requires a very extensive and elaborate missile defence system across the country. However, cost and technology will allow it at select points, leaving the nation exposed to nuclear strikes.

A change of policy to ambiguity is recommended, as it encompasses four options including NFU. The benefits that accrue include deterring first strike on India. It may be called destabilising, but four other nuclear weapon states follow this policy. It enhances and improves the psychological state of the nation. A shift to a proactive policy is reassuring to the public. It does not allow destruction of the nation and strategic forces at the outset; hence the arsenal is intact for use. It provides a better range of options to launch decapitating and/ or disarming strikes to deal with the adversary leadership/ arsenal, and allows a proactive CBM policy.

On massive retaliation:

At times doubts are raised over the strategy of MR. Reasons to doubt its applicability are:

Gradual escalation/ quid pro quo will prevent large scale nuclear damage and is a pragmatic option;
Response to a few or one tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) should not be disproportionate which could result in an all-out nuclear war;
Escalation control should be practiced in conventional and nuclear war on moral and humanitarian considerations …
The strategy is not rational, our political leadership may not show resolve during crisis or at the time of decision.
[But] MR is the declared policy, and must be implemented. The nation has placed faith in political leadership and the leadership is expected to fulfil their responsibility. In case we vacillate on the issue or raise doubts about our commitment to the policy, we will send wrong signals to our adversary(s).

On nuclear signalling:

A more proactive public communication will help reassure the public, and it should be practiced in the future, especially when we are committed to NFU. A unique feature of nuclear deterrent signalling has been the role of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists in speaking on strategy, development and employment philosophy. The statements by the scientists also prematurely release information on delivery systems, which later become embarrassing when time lines are overshot/ delayed. A deliberate and well-thought out nuclear signalling policy should be put in place to communicate with the nation and send the desired message to the adversary(s). The political leadership must speak on select occasions on India’s nuclear policy to display the resolve and credibility without conveying an aggressive posture. An open paper on national security including nuclear policy should be issued periodically. This will invite debate and suggestions and enrich the policy.

On MIRVs:

Future developments required are MIRV and MaRV capability. MIRV does provide a system to increase the number of targets destroyed by one delivery vehicle, overcome missile interception defences, deliver more on a single missile, thereby reducing the delivery vehicles. However, the disadvantage of MIRV delivery missile loss does worry planners with small arsenals. MaRV [Manoeuvrable reentry vehicle] is required to overcome missile interception defences, ensure assured strike and it also improves deterrence. Other aspects for future development are improved guidance systems, miniaturisation, bigger SSBNs, anti-satellite capability, space based sensors, earth penetrating systems and host of new technology required to overcome protection/ defensive systems.

On missile defence:

Para 5.4 of the draft doctrine stated ‘the survivability of the nuclear arsenal and effective command, control, communications, computing, intelligence and information systems shall be ensured’. Under the survivability clause one issue that can be evaluated is ballistic missile defence. To protect India with a ballistic missile defence is nearly impractical. However, critical elements of Command and Control, nuclear forces and important industrial/ populations can be protected.

Conclusion:

However, there are differences of opinion on some aspects of the doctrine. The doctrine of strategic deterrence is sound, serves the objectives of deterrence and India would be ill-advised to shift to nuclear war-fighting. Credible Minimum Deterrent is a dynamic and flexible concept and serves Indian planners’ requirements. The most divisive feature is the NFU policy. As discussed earlier, there is a need to give greater space and options to India’s leadership by shifting to a policy of deliberate or studied ambiguity.

Ambiguity covers employment options from first use i.e. pre-emption, launch on warning, launch on launch and NFU, thus not defining the circumstances for use of nuclear weapons and complicating the adversary’s planning. The policy of massive retaliation is appropriate as long as India follows a NFU policy, but will undergo a change if India abandons NFU. Indian political leadership credibility comes under doubt at policy discussion forums. There is a need to conduct better nuclear signalling and obtain the confidence of the public on our nuclear doctrine.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

The author has changed his views from his own past statements, self acknowledged.
India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Need for a Review By Gurmeet Kanwal
The NFU posture remains feasible for India’s nuclear doctrine. However, the word “massive” in the government statement should be substituted with “punitive” as massive is not credible and limits retaliatory options. The threat of nuclear retaliation against chemical and biological attack should be dropped from the doctrine as it is impractical. Also, the credibility of India’s nuclear doctrine needs to be substantially enhanced through a skillfully drawn signaling plan.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Deterrence posture is postulated to instill fear in the adversaries. Pak fears only massive destruction. So any word less than that is meaningless.
Indian posture towards Pak inn that regard is very credible.


NFU is another matter. As ABV said no one will sit and wait to be hit. NFU is good till the two super powers downsize to appropriate levels.

No need for changes at this time.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

We have to constantly repeat that India has the capacity and determination to obliterate Pakistan completely if it does anything funny at all.

This is a message not only for Pakistan but its 3½ friends as well.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by JE Menon »

"There is a need to conduct better nuclear signalling and obtain the confidence of the public on our nuclear doctrine".

The article is not much use, and does not directly connect to the only useful sentence in there (quoted in this post). It is clear that nuclear signalling needs to be more robust, and public confidence in our nuclear capability and doctrine has to bee enhanced - the two can go hand in hand very well.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

JEM
Both have been signalled multiple times by high officials in multiple manner including terminal pictures of missile tests.
Only morons on pindi channa will fail to see it.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by JE Menon »

I should have been clear... I meant by the Modi government. Perhaps in our calculus, it is too early for that. Anyway it's a nitpick on my side. The article itself I find to be pointless ...
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

RSS body wants Narendra Modi government to revisit nuclear doctrine
ET has accessed a booklet, meant for in-house circulation among FINS office-bearers. The preface by FINS President Lt Gen DB Shekatkar says that "the new government at the Centre needs to revisit the Nuclear Doctrine as has been mandated by the Doctrine itself, reconsider probable changes if necessary and strengthen the strategic and security infrastructure of the country."

"Should we still remain captive to no-first use (NFU) commitment, what should be our response to our hostile neighbour, who possesses tactical nuclear weapons and whose declared philosophy and doctrine is that the nuclear bombs/Missiles in possession of this neighbour is only against India? Should we wait for the first strike against us or do we need to formulate a doctrine and policy to prevent such strike at all costs?..We must remember that in 21st century philosophy of survival of fittest must be replaced by survival of fastest, unless we can preempt, we cannot survive," Lt Gen Shekatkar says in the preface.
Referenced so called RSS body. http://finsindia.org
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by Avarachan »

I'm x-posting in this thread in case it's of interest.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1780078
Avarachan wrote:
fanne wrote: or was there some rivalry between VKS and AC (as in some fundamental difference, like lets build a 20,000 KM ICBM and both on different pages and AC being different than NAMO govt).
No. What needs to be more widely understood is that in India (as in most large, developed countries), there is a national-security establishment which is very deeply embedded. Politicians come and go, but it is extremely difficult to get rid of the establishment (barring cataclysmic war). India's national-security establishment remembers the events of 1965-66 (Congress), 1971 (Congress), 1998-99 (BJP), and 2008 (Congress). There is unanimity on the need for 360 degree deterrence.

By the way, India already has that to a certain extent. If a missile can travel 3500 km with a 2500 kg payload, perhaps it can travel much further with a 200 kg payload. I'll leave that to your imagination.

UPDATE: I should add that this is not a prescription for complacency. It is certainly true that foolish politicians can do significant damage to a country's national-security establishment. One example of that is PM Morarji Desai (who is rumored to have been a CIA asset; he shut down much of RAW). Another example is PM I.K. Gujral (who shut down CIT-X and CIT-J).
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by Avarachan »

I'm x-posting in this thread in case it's of interest.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1787642
Avarachan wrote:
RoyG wrote:This is all maya onlee. The thrust of our nuclear push will come from the PHWR in the short and medium term. We're only getting 12 reactors from the US, and that's if everything goes to plan with the Japanese. The US and India just needed to get this over with. It had dragged on for too long. The real test is when we detonate a few bombs.
+1. By the way, despite all the pappi-jhappi during UPA-1, Unkil still ordered the attack on Mumbai. (The timing of the attack is the key to understanding it: *after* the tests of Agony Trishul, but *before* its induction; after GWB's term had ended, but before MMS's term had.) I fully believe that if a war had broken out, "Pakistan" would have had astonishing success in destroying DRDO/DAE/ISRO facilities.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

Pakistan soon to commission a DARHT facility
Translation - TSP is definitely on its route to plutonium designs both for tactical and thermo nuclear purposes.
A disturbing but not surprising piece of news was conveyed by a reliable non-Western, non-Indian government source. The Strategic Plans Division, Chaklala, Pakistan Army — that country’s nuclear secretariat responsible for strategic planning, and operational readiness of that country’s nuclear forces, has been preoccupied with building with China’s expert and material help and technical assistance a Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Testing facility. This DARHT installed in the underground nuclear complex at Golra, will soon be commissioned. In the absence of physical testing, the DARHT facility will help the Pakistani nuclear weaponeers improve their weapons designs and refine their yields. DARHT only provides more evidence for what I have always maintained that, unlike India, Pakistan is very serious about nuclear security, takes nothing for granted, and will not risk weapons that may work well on paper but not as well in reality. The DARHT will propel Pakistan past India in the quality of its nuclear arsenal. What to talk of China, Indian nuclear weaponry may not even stand up to Pakistan’s inventory. The fabled China-Pakistan nuclear nexus, in the event, would become well nigh insurmountable.

Meanwhile, the weapons directorate at BARC, Trombay — severely neglected by New Delhi, languishes — unable anymore to attract the best and the brightest from among the talent pool recruited by DAE because there are no technical challenges to overcome, no forward-looking agenda to realize. India, thus keeps sliding strategically on the nuclear military front and, with the Modi-Obama nuclear compromise, in the civilian nuclear energy sphere, as well. And, the most disastrous thing to happen to the country’s nuclear programme — Dr R Chidambaram continues as Science and technology adviser to PM Modi and, like Nero, fiddles as the Indian nuclear energy programme burns.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

Big news. Wonder if India has secretly been doing the same.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

RoyG, All this DARHT/TARHT is cover for actual transfers of Chinese maal under guise of pindigenous development by TSP.

T is for tri axis as TSP is always one step ahead!
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

ramana wrote:RoyG, All this DARHT/TARHT is cover for actual transfers of Chinese maal under guise of pindigenous development by TSP.

T is for tri axis as TSP is always one step ahead!
So, we test.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Post by Gagan »

Golra Sharif is in south west Islamabad.
It has a uranium enrichment facility. I had posted google earth pictures of the facility.

Pakistan is making strides with China's help in being able to produce a lot of plutonium. Since the army is in power, they will surely use this to produce weapons.

Their uranium based weapons are a joke.
But they have to be prevented from becoming a true nuclear power with plutonium weapons.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

North Korea’s Nuclear Expansion
North Korea could be on track to have an arsenal of 100 nuclear weapons by 2020, according to a new research report. The prediction, from experts on North Korea, goes well beyond past estimates and should force renewed attention on a threat that has been eclipsed by other crises....

Details about the programs are hard to come by given North Korea’s closed system. As a result, the researchers have outlined possible scenarios for the next five years, ranging from 20 nuclear weapons to 100, which would put North Korea on a par with India, Pakistan and Israel. Independently, China has also estimated the program to be capable of producing the higher range of weapons, another expert on North Korea told The Times.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by arun »

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

George Perkovich.
Testimony. February 25, 2015.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee

Read more at:

Regional Nuclear Dynamics

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ashley J. Tellis.
Testimony. February 25, 2015.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Read more at:

China, India, And Pakistan—Growing Nuclear Capabilities With No End in Sight
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Post by wig »

Pakistan has more nukes than India, shows new infographic
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 513011.cms
WASHINGTON: Pakistan had about 120 atomic weapons, 10 more than India, in its nuclear arsenal last year, according to a new interactive infographic unveiled by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Designed by the Bulletin, founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the infographic tracks the number and history of nuclear weapons in the nine nuclear weapon states.

The Nuclear Notebook Interactive Infographic provides a visual representation of the Bulletin's famed Nuclear Notebook, which since 1987 has tracked the number and type of the world's nuclear arsenals.

READ ALSO: Pakistan to have 200 nuclear weapons by 2020: US think tank

Having reached a peak of over 65,000 in the late 1980s, the number of nuclear warheads has dropped significantly to a little over 10,000, but more countries now possess them, it shows.

According to the infographic, the United States and Russia both have about 5,000 weapons each.

France has 300, China 250, the United Kingdom 225 and Israel 80. North Korea has only conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013.

"I don't think people truly understand just how many of these weapons there are in the world," said Rachel Bronson, executive director of the Bulletin.

"The Interactive is a way to see, immediately, who has nuclear weapons and when they got them, and how those numbers relate to each other. It is a startling experience, looking at those comparisons."

The authors of the Nuclear Notebook are Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, both with the Federation of American Scientists.

In the most recent edition of the Nuclear Notebook, the authors discuss the Notebook's 28 year history and describe how sometimes host countries learned of foreign nuclear weapons on their soil from the Nuclear Notebook.

Over 28 years of weapons analysis, the Nuclear Notebook column has revealed surprise nuclear activity and spot-on arsenal estimates while becoming a daily resource for scholars, activists and journalists.

"We wanted a way to communicate those numbers visually, because the world we live may be data-driven, it's also visual," said John Mecklin, editor of the Bulletin.

"The new infographic makes this vital information even more accessible."
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

India is now considered a NWS - NOT!

Playing nice by the rules, designed to work against India, serves our geo-political interests?

China knows how to play hard ball, can India step up to the game?

India's NSG Membership: Examining the Relationship between NPT and the NSG
some PGs, primarily led by China, continue to oppose India's inclusion
into the Group.
Another example is that of China and its export of two additional nuclear reactors to Pakistan at sites
Chashma-3 and Chashma-4. China claimed that the export of the reactors is grandfathered by an
agreement made between China and Pakistan in the 1980s, much before 2004 when China joined the
Group.21 But the fact remains that China did not disclose its plans of exporting new reactors to the
NSG PGs in 2004 which it was required to notify.22 On the contrary, it had assured the NSG that it will
not export any reactors than Chashma-1 and -2.23 China's decision to export reactors is a clear
violation of the NSG guideline that requires Pakistan to place its entire nuclear programme under
IAEA safeguards if it receives any additional reactors from China. In fact, Pakistan was not even asked
to separate its civil nuclear and weapons programme. This threatens the credibility and the legitimacy
of the Group.
India, on the other hand, despite being outside the NPT, has maintained an “impeccable” record in so
far as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned. It has put in stringent export controls which ensure that
India does not contribute to nuclear proliferation in any way. It has furthermore maintained high
levels of security and safety around its nuclear and related materials, equipments and technologies—at
par with some of the best international practices.24
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Deterrence

Post by sanjaykumar »

India needs to abjure NFU specifically in the case of Pakistan. It is quite counter-productive for India to play nice when Pakistan threatens it with nukes even if the US moves to 'secure' Pakistani nukes.

Hopefully this will happen once India is inducted into the NSG. I understand Vietnam could use nuclear power, let India also establish its potential proliferator credentials. That is the path to the NSG, not any 'impeccable' record. The latter is naive and stupid.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tuvaluan »

India is going to construct a nuclear power plant in Sri Lanka -- don't see why it can't do so in vietnam too, at some point.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

A well researched set of views - from an American perspective.

Southern Asia's Nuclear Powers
Introduction

Southern Asia is home to three nuclear powers—China, India, and Pakistan—that continue to expand and modernize their arms programs. Motivated by the need to address perceived security threats, each is seeking to expand ballistic missile and cruise missile-based nuclear delivery systems. Such nuclear competition is dangerous given mounting mistrust and a dearth of diplomatic measures in place to reduce risk of confrontation. Pakistan’s chronic political instability, spotty nonproliferation record, and ongoing threats posed by militant forces have focused special concern on the safety of its nuclear materials.
What is the future of Southern Asia's nuclear competition?

Southern Asia's nuclear competition is seen by experts as fundamentally unstable (PDF). Koblentz has identified the region as the "most at risk of a breakdown in strategic stability due to an explosive mixture of unresolved territorial disputes, cross-border terrorism, and growing nuclear arsenals."

Domestic pressures add to the growing list of concerns about the region, especially in Pakistan, a country whose stability is challenged by militant groups. Despite repeated claims (PDF) by Pakistan that its nuclear facilities are secure, fears persist that a regional terrorist attack will escalate violence, prompting nuclear exchange, or that Pakistani-based or affiliated militants will acquire nuclear weapons. Experts warn of intensified nuclear risks, especially in an age in which non-state actors can develop cybersecurity (PDF) capabilities to exploit nuclear security.

There is no sign of nuclear modernization abating in China, India, or Pakistan. Expert Ashley J. Tellis writes that "in the foreseeable future, the Asian reliance (PDF) on nuclear weapons will increase." Meanwhile, nuclear powers have limited tools at their disposal to influence nuclear expansion in Asia, particularly since India and Pakistan are outside the NPT. Nuclear risk reduction measures are few and far between across the region.

"Nuclear competition in Southern Asia represents a classic conundrum of international relations: enormously high stakes, conflicting and entrenched interests, and at least in the near term, few realistic avenues for mitigating threats, much less addressing them in a more permanent way," says CFR's Daniel S. Markey.

This Backgrounder is part of a CFR project on the New Geopolitics of China, India, and Pakistan, supported in part by a generous grant from the MacArthur Foundation.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Western Europe is the home of tow competing nuclear powers UK and France. Over these two looms the shadow of Russia and US.
"Nuclear competition in Southern Asia Western Europe represents a classic conundrum of international relations: enormously high stakes, conflicting and entrenched interests, and at least in the near term, few realistic avenues for mitigating threats, much less addressing them in a more permanent way," says CFR's Daniel S. Markey BRF's Ramana.D.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Post by member_23370 »

sanjaykumar wrote:India needs to abjure NFU specifically in the case of Pakistan. It is quite counter-productive for India to play nice when Pakistan threatens it with nukes even if the US moves to 'secure' Pakistani nukes.

Hopefully this will happen once India is inducted into the NSG. I understand Vietnam could use nuclear power, let India also establish its potential proliferator credentials. That is the path to the NSG, not any 'impeccable' record. The latter is naive and stupid.
Indian NFU is only for non no-clear states right? Does it apply to porkis? Also India will sell reactors to vietnam pretty soon.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Deterrence

Post by sanjaykumar »

I am not sure if that does apply to non-nuclear states, it is a matter of language and meaning. A no first use pledge against a NNW state really has no meaning-by definition there can only be a first use of nuclear weapons by the possesser only.

Thus this pledge can be taken to apply to NW states.


Interestingly, see:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/is-india ... -doctrine/

Shashank Joshi has called attention to an alternative nuclear doctrine outlined by the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) in Delhi in 2012.
That report called for India to declare: “In adherence to a policy of no first use, India will not initiate a nuclear strike.” However, as Joshi points out, the report goes on to define initiate as “mating component systems and deploying warheads” with the possible intent of carrying out a nuclear strike. Joshi explains that this “means that if Pakistan mates its warheads to missiles as part of nuclear alerting during a crisis, it can be understood to have ‘initiated’ a nuclear strike. That denudes NFU of all meaning.” The same report advocates labeling allies of nuclear-armed countries as nuclear weapon states themselves, paving the way for India to launch nuclear strikes against them as well.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Deterrence

Post by sanjaykumar »

The above presupposes that India now has the requiste technical and/orHumint resources to detect nuclear alerting as defined.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

That report is humbug. It MND already states that. Why restate what was already stated?
IPCS is US think tank in Delhi.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Muppalla »

This bakwas of Pak has more than India, Pak has more plutonium and etc keep repeating every year. Reality is the forces want India to comeout and tell about its maal.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

In American forests the ground squirrel when confronted by a rattle snake which can sense only heat does two things: raise its tail and pumps blood to the tail.

What this does by raising its tail is alerts the rattler that the squirrel has taken note of the snakes threat and by pumping the tail with blood informs the snake it could be facing a bigger threat and slither away.

Same analogy with respect to the Paki snake and its backers.

Cold Start is part of the posture.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

The Bakis are thinking like this.

- Do a massive terrorist strike on India.
- India launches Cold Start
- Pakis nuke the columns. (First strike in their own areas. War prevention part of nukes)

------
So they think to prevent retaliation
- Pakis use their diesel sub based Barbarian CM as second strike.

So all this will allow them to continue terrorism.

However India has stated it will massively retaliate on any deterrence breakdown on TSP and its allies.


Aab khya hoga kalia?
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Deterrence

Post by Prem »

Basically Paki have to decide the destiny of their country to fulfill their desire to conduct major terrorist act. Cold Start acts like LOX to them.
Jeena Bekar, Maarna Bekar
Kiss Baat Ki ,Tuu Kare Takrar!
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tuvaluan »

Why is an Indian Think Tank like IDSA publishing what seems to be a repetition of paki claims of having a submarine based deterrent?

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... at-sea/99/
According to sources, the Arihant is fitted with four universal tube launchers, which can each carry either three K-15 missiles or one K-4 missile. Observers have raised questions, however, over the compatibility of the K-4’s height with the submarine’s 10.4-m hull. If the length of the K-4 cannot be shortened, the Arihant may need to be retrofitted with a hydrodynamic outer development, or “bump.” Even if the DRDO’s engineers do succeed in squeezing the K-4 aboard, the missile’s range remains
who are these "sources" in India revealing such information to foreign nationals working for french think tanks? I mean, this guy has to know a lot of detail about the Indian submarines and the K-4 to make these claims in public, and he is a fellow at the IDSA which is run/supported by the delhi babucracy I think. Is this guy being fed BS by "sources"?
By nuclearising — or by appearing to nuclearise — a large portion of their fleet architecture, Pakistani military planners hope to neuter India’s growing naval power, inject ambiguity and acquire escalation dominance in the event of a limited conflict at sea. Since Independence, Indian naval officers have been accustomed to operating within a purely conventional maritime setting. Dealing with such a prospective adversary will no doubt necessitate a fundamental rethinking of the navy’s operational concepts. Perhaps more importantly, it will also require an effort on the part of both countries to further institutionalise the maritime component of their relations so as to ensure that in future, isolated incidents don’t spiral out of control.
How many submarines does pakistan have? They were rumoured to be provided diesel powered subs by France (or maybe it was Germany) a few years ago -- did they actually get those subs? Why aren't these same questions/insinuations made by this guy about India's programs asked about the paki subs and their cruise missiles? Why should India engage with Pakistan, if it mates its weapons and have them in submarine triads (as implied by this guy) when India has stated that the very act of mating nukes will be considered an escalation all the way to the top of the ladder? Makes no sense, this article.
krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 917
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Deterrence

Post by krishna_krishna »

^^^ I won't place much importance on ignorant fellow. Mostly old news in media bundled up with myopic peki vision (propaganda)to disregard anything threatening from desh light years away.

Read he is visiting fellow at Atlantic council, members around siachin piss process should know what they are upto. My surprise is why this junk made to BR front page!!! We should have let it rote in garbage basket where it belongs. My nayya paisa only we are far ahead than people think or believe
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by svinayak »

The guy Kidwai keeps talking about South Asia as if he and his country owns south asia.
He should be only talking about Pakistan and what is the impact for Pakistan.

This guy tries to give a spin on terrorism in his country as if it came by itself into its country.
He talks about 1.5 billion people as if he is from a country of 1.5 billion country.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

Is there an authority, which will excuse one murder for the larger good? I will respond to this bugger after my mind has sufficiently cooled off. Thanks for posting.
Post Reply