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.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Deterrence

Postby Prem » 17 Mar 2016 03:43

Nuclear and naval stability
Paki Harami Link

The US based influential foreign policy magazine, recently reported that India is building a top secret nuclear facility in Southern state of Karnataka (formerly Mysore) to produce thermo-nuclear weapons. Located in the city of Challakere, about 260 km from Mysore on the India’s western coast, the facility is expected to be completed by 2017. It will upgrade India’ nuclear weapons, but would be “deeply unsettling” for its neighbours, according to the report. The report lists that the project’s primary aim is to expand the government’s nuclear research, to produce fuel for Indian nuclear reactors, and to help power the country’s fleet of nuclear submarines.Substantiating this report, retired Indian nuclear scientists and military officers disclosed in interviews that Indian’s growing fleet of nuclear submarines would be the first and foremost beneficiary of the newly produced enriched uranium. Welcome to the maritime arena, the Indian ocean, one of the two upcoming global battle grounds for geo-political contest, rivalry as well as cooperation in this century. The other being South China sea in the western Pacific ocean.

Previously reeling from some enduring security challenges, the Indian Ocean is now confronted with an unwinnable race for military nuclearization, duly adding to the regional woes and instability. Through the Northern Arabian Sea in the western Indian ocean huge shipments of fossil fuels and other goods destined for regional and extra regional countries traverse each day. The economic growth of these countries is tied to this area of the Indian Ocean. The chaos in the Middle East and rise of ISIS impinge on the region’s fragile maritime security. The unfolding geopolitical landscape is meanwhile steadily fuelling angst in the region. India’s unfounded agitation on CPEC, the P5+1 agreement with Iran on latter’s nuclear programme and the recent move by Riyadh to forge 34 nation alliance cannot conceal the strategic fissures, the likely triggers for realignments in the Indian Ocean.Besides conventional naval build up, the intimidating doctrines and bellicose policies aimed at regional domination and overwhelming the small Island states, India is in overdrive to subvert strategic political and economic interest of neighboring countries. But little does New Delhi recognize that this zeal for absolute mastery is only a recipe that will further cut on the precarious regional stability.
An unnamed senior official in the US administration recently stated that India’s civilian nuclear program is profiting from new access to imported nuclear fuel after removal of embargo in 2007 and now require almost “no homemade enriched uranium”. While India has yet to purchase a single nuclear reactor from Washington, it has already received around 4,914 tonnes of uranium from France, Russia and Kazakhstan and has agreements in place with Canada, Argentina and Namibia for additional shipments.The International Panel on Fissile Materials, a consortium of nuclear experts from 16countries, estimates that the Arihant class, India’s locally constructed nuclear submarine, core requires only about 143 pounds of uranium, enriched to 30 percent – a measure of how many of its isotopes can be readily used in weaponry. Using this figure and the estimated capacity of the centrifuges India is installing in the upcoming secret site at Karnataka alone, former IAEA analysts conclude that even after refueling its entire fleet of nuclear submarines (estimated to be 3-5 in next decade or so) there would be 352 pounds of weapon grade uranium left over every year enough for at least 22 Hydrogen bombs.This then is the net result of Indo-US nuclear accord. It serves to demonstrate how the deal has and shall continue to help New Delhi expand its nuclear ambitions of becoming a “regional policeman” in the Indian Ocean. While Washington works hard to promote global nuclear disarmament with one hand, it tacitly supports proliferation with the other.
On operational side, India’s sole nuclear submarine, Arihant is not yet fully integrated with the fleet. But even once integrated, the more tough business of delegating nuclear command authority to a field commander, (officer of the rank of Commander or Captain-Lt Col/Col equivalent) commanding the nuclear submarine will have to be resolved. In the meantime, the Indian navy carrier, Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) brought from Russia after painful delays of several years is still unable to fully support fighter operations from its flight deck.Externally, the greatest hurdle standing in the path of India’s rise in the western Indian ocean, if not the entire Indian ocean is Pakistan with its small yet resilient navy. With port of Gwadar just next to the Strait of Hormuz acting as gateway to multiple regions, CPEC promises economic boon for both, China and Pakistan. Given its steadily rising stakes in the region, Beijing is set to increase military footprint in the Indian ocean to ensure security of trade and assets. Washington will do well to lower its mollycoddling with the Modi government. Anything short will only stir up more instability.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4107
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Deterrence

Postby sanjaykumar » 17 Mar 2016 05:49

Using this figure and the estimated capacity of the centrifuges India is installing in the upcoming secret site at Karnataka alone, former IAEA analysts conclude that even after refueling its entire fleet of nuclear submarines (estimated to be 3-5 in next decade or so) there would be 352 pounds of weapon grade uranium left over every year enough for at least 22 Hydrogen bombs.[i]This then is the net result of Indo-US nuclear accord. It serves to demonstrate how the deal has and shall continue to help New Delhi expand its nuclear ambitions of becoming a “regional policeman” in the Indian Ocean. While Washington works hard to promote global nuclear disarmament with one hand, it tacitly supports proliferation with the other.[/i]


Of course. All three parties, India, the U.S. and China understand this. The ra-ra brigade for India's autonomy from the US needs to understand this-it is no accidental by product of the Indo-US nuclear accord. The accord seems to have been designed to accomplish this.


Of course the Pakistanis have to interject themselves to feel important.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 17 Mar 2016 05:50

So Pakis are threatening India again.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby RajeshA » 20 Mar 2016 15:52

Zakaria on GPS on CNN about to talk about Pakistani Nuclear Weapons and Jihadists to boot!

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6330
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 20 Mar 2016 17:51

If you watched the show, can you post a summary?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby RajeshA » 20 Mar 2016 20:24

Supratik wrote:If you watched the show, can you post a summary?


He said something on the lines that Pakistan would have 250 warheads by 2025 and be the 3rd power after USA and Russia with nukes and a lot of Jihadis very eager to get their hands on them. Jihadis have been busy attacking govt. installations and kidnapping nuclear scientists. ... Something USA should care about!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 20 Mar 2016 20:44

RajeshA wrote:
Supratik wrote:If you watched the show, can you post a summary?


He said something on the lines that Pakistan would have 250 warheads by 2025 and be the 3rd power after USA and Russia with nukes and a lot of Jihadis very eager to get their hands on them. Jihadis have been busy attacking govt. installations and kidnapping nuclear scientists. ... Something USA should care about!


Pak became world problem after 1998 tests.
Game was to keep them focussed on India/ Kargil gambit etc.

However 9/11 and then 13/12 happened leading to Operation Parakram.

Now Pakis are a world problem again.

Its a barely functioning State similar to Iraq or Syria or Libya.

So game will be to make India make some concessions to reduce Paki threat to world.

However it will still be a threat to India.

Fareed bhai is highlighting the threat prior to March 30 conference.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6330
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 20 Mar 2016 20:57

BS. Why are they then selling more delivery systems like the F16s if they are so concerned? I think the idea is to blackmail India as ramana says.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby member_22733 » 20 Mar 2016 20:59

That is exactly the point here. We are being good boys, to our own detriment.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 20 Mar 2016 22:22

RajeshA wrote:
Supratik wrote:If you watched the show, can you post a summary?


He said something on the lines that Pakistan would have 250 warheads by 2025 and be the 3rd power after USA and Russia with nukes and a lot of Jihadis very eager to get their hands on them. Jihadis have been busy attacking govt. installations and kidnapping nuclear scientists. ... Something USA should care about!

Even China has more nukes and will give it to Pak. This claim of more nukes is to get attention to Pak and to create pressure .
Image is also being built as if it is a big power. This was followed after Zia ul Haq when the image projected was that Pak can cause serious damage to India. The collapsing state is being totally ignored

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 21 Mar 2016 03:09

Have Pakistan’s Tactical
Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) Served its Policy of Full Spectrum Deterrence?

Col Surya Bhanu Rai is a serving officer of the Indian Army currently pursuing research in CLAWS.
1. The development of the Nasr is yet another action,
as part of Pakistan’s overall effort since 2004, to
counter India’s so-called Cold Start Strategy and
is aimed at targeting Indian IBGs executing the
Cold Start doctrine.
2. TNWs can be defined as “weapons designed to
engage objects in the tactical depth of enemy
deployment (up to 300 km) to accomplish a
tactical mission. Under certain conditions, tactical
nuclear weapons may be involved in operational
and strategic missions.
3. As per conservative estimates, the US still
possesses 500 TNWs, while the Russian Federation
has 2,000 of these.
4. There would be a minimum inescapable
requirement of 436 TNWs to stop an armoured
division.

5. A TNW will require close to 15 kg of Pu for a sub-
KT yield. Hence, if Pakistan is likely to have Pu based
warheads on the Nasr, its numbers could
be only be around 30 by the year 2020.

6. Pakistan believes that contrary to India’s stated
doctrine, the use of low yield TNWs would
not be seen as provocation enough by India or
the international community to merit massive
retaliation.


Conclusion
Use of TNWs against Indian forces on its own
soil will comprise brinkmanship by Pakistan to
keep India, in particular, and the international
community, in general, on edge. The presumption
behind this brinkmanship is that India would be
deterred to use its conventional forces on Pakistani
soil, especially in response to the terrorist attacks,
as the risk of escalation would be too high. The
signalling from India that a few TNWs cannot halt
the Indian forces from conducting operations, as
they are equipped and trained for this, has blunted
Pakistan’s full spectrum deterrence strategy. Further,
any category of use of nuclear weapons, anywhere,
on Indian forces, may result in catastrophic damage
to, and decimation of, the adversary.

Thus, India has
endeavoured to convey a clear message to Pakistan
that it would not make any sense to challenge or
threaten India with the use of TNWs. However,
these signals need to be sent more often in the form
of issuing of White Papers, Strategic Posture Reviews,
etc based on periodic exercises of examining
strategic issues, assessment of threat scenarios, the
adversary’s capabilities and own response options.


Important reference from the article.
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) Note
of January 2013 further strengthens the resolve by
amplifying, “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will
be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable
damage” ..

The CCS reviewed the existing command and control structures, the state of readiness, the targetting strategy for a retaliatory attack, and operating procedures for various stages of alert and launch. The Committee expressed satisfaction with the overall preparedness. The CCS approved the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command, to manage and administer all Strategic Forces.

The CCS also reviewed and approved the arrangements for alternate chains of command for retaliatory nuclear strikes in all eventualities.
CCS Note on India’s Nuclear Doctrine, January 04, 2013

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2016 06:50

Lets look at smaller nuke powers: France, UK.

France nukes are to deter Germany only.
In fact French nuke modernization occurred during the early 1990s after Cold war ended(1988) and Soviet Union along with it Warsaw Pact collapsed (1992).

German reunification happened in the aftermath. France since Napoleon has been invaded and defeated by Germany thrice (1870s, 1914, 1939)

UK by all intents should have given up nukes with FSU collapse and end of Cold War.

Yet it retains them and has special alliance with US which transfers designs.

UK has nukes only because France has them.

And MEA mandrins think India should follow France as a model.

Model of what!!!!
Deter a non-nuclear power with Nukes!!!!
And UK which has nukes because it fears return of Napoleon.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Mar 2016 20:35

Momentum slows on Obama's nuclear security agenda

“The Nuclear Security Summits have had a positive effect, but the strategic goal of developing an effective global nuclear security system remains unachieved,” the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an anti-proliferation watchdog, said in a report.

According to the group's Nuclear Security Index, which tracks the safety of weapons-usable nuclear materials, the past two years have brought no improvement in a range of measures, including on-site physical protection, security during transport and the ability to recover lost radioactive materials.


More commitments from world leaders to enhance nuclear security are expected at this summit, but anti-proliferation groups worry that without further meetings at the highest levels, interest could wane and improvements could backslide.

Adding to the sense that Obama’s last nuclear summit might not be as productive as the earlier ones, Russian officials are skipping the meeting. The White House called the decision a “missed opportunity.”

Some analysts suggested that President Vladimir Putin, chafing over U.S.-led international sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, was sending a message that Moscow would not abide American leadership on the issue.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Mar 2016 20:57

Do we not all love American democracy?

COOPER: Let's talk about nuclear issues because you talked about this in a really interesting article in The New York Times.

TRUMP: One of the very, very big issues. I think maybe the biggest issue of our time.

COOPER: That's what you said to The New York Times. You said you worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons…

TRUMP: Right.

COOPER: … the most. You also said, though, that you might support Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons of their own. Isn't that completely contradictory?

TRUMP: No, not at all. Look, you have North Korea has nuclear weapons. And he doesn't have a carrier yet but he has got nuclear weapons. He soon will have. We don't want to pull the trigger. We're just -- you know, we have a president, frankly, that doesn't -- nobody is afraid of our president. Nobody respects our president.

You take a look at what's going on throughout the world. It's not the country that it was.

COOPER: But if you're concerned about proliferation, letting other countries get nuclear weapons, isn't that proliferation?

TRUMP: No, no. We owe $19 $trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. It's a disgrace, which gives everything that Obama wanted. We get nothing. They get everything.

So that's going to be $21 trillion. We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia which was making during the good oil days which was a year ago, now they're making less but still a lot, $1 billion a day.

We are supporting them, militarily, and pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. Most people didn't even know that. Most people didn't know that we are taking care of Japan's military needs. We're supporting…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me, we're supporting Germany. We're supporting South Korea. I order thousands of television sets because I am in the real estate business, you know, in my other life, OK.

COOPER: It has been a U.S. policy for decades to prevent Japan from getting a nuclear weapon.

TRUMP: That might be policy, but maybe…

COOPER: South Korea as well.

TRUMP: Can I be honest are you? Maybe it's going to have to be time to change, because so many people, you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it…

COOPER: So some proliferation is OK?

TRUMP: No, no, not proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any. My uncle was a professor was at MIT, used to (AUDIO GAP) nuclear, he used to tell me about the problem.

COOPER: But that's contradictory about Japan and South Korea.

TRUMP: (AUDIO GAP) Iran is going to have it very -- within…

COOPER: But that's proliferation.

TRUMP: Excuse me, one of the dumbest I've ever seen signed ever, ever, ever by anybody, Iran is going to have it within 10 years. Iran is going to have it. I thought it was a very good interview in The New York Times.

COOPER: So you have no problem with Japan and South Korea having…

TRUMP: I thought…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: … nuclear weapons.

TRUMP: At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself, we have…

COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.

Here's the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.

COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it's fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?

TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.

But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.

Now, wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And they do have them. They absolutely have them. They can't -- they have no carrier system yet but they will very soon.

Wouldn't you rather have Japan, perhaps, they're over there, they're very close, they're very fearful of North Korea, and we're supposed to protect.

COOPER: So you're saying you don't want more nuclear weapons in the world but you're OK with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: I don't want more nuclear weapons. I think that -- you know, when I hear Obama get up and say the biggest threat to the world today is global warming, I say, is this guy kidding?

The only global warming -- the only global warming I'm worried about is nuclear global warming because that's the single biggest threat. So it's not that I'm a fan -- we can't afford it anymore. We're sitting on a tremendous bubble. We're going to be -- again, $21 trillion. We don't have money.

COOPER: So you have no security concerns…

TRUMP: We're using all of the money…

COOPER: … about Japan or South Korea getting nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Anderson, when you see all of the money that our country is spending on military, we're not spending it for ourselves; we're protecting all of these nations all over the world. We can't afford to do it anymore.

COOPER: But isn't there benefit for the United States in having a secure Europe. Isn't there benefit for the United States in having a secure Asia.

TRUMP: There's a benefit, but not big enough to bankrupt and destroy the United States, because that's what's happening. We can't afford it. It's very simple.

Now, I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea. Because we're not pulling the trigger. The bottom line on North Korea is china, if they wanted to, they're a tremendous supplier of North Korea. They have tremendous power over North Korea. If they wanted to, if they weren't toying with us, Anderson, China would be the one that would get in and could make a deal in one day, okay...


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2016 22:45

If failing states like Pakistan can have nukes, why can't responsible states like Japan and South Korea have nukes when faced with unstable North Korea?
Common factor in Pakistan and North Korea nukes is China.

Trump is right US can't afford to bankrupt itself as all China has to do is enable more states to acquire nukes.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23755
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 31 Mar 2016 15:25

US, India discuss Pakistan and the Pink Flamingo scenario - Chidanand Rajghatta, ToI
The United States and India have begun conversations about Pakistan's runaway nuclear weapons program, including its development and deployment of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, in the backdrop of the nuclear security summit that opens here on Thursday.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected in the US capital on Thursday morning, but ahead of his arrival, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and his US counterparts and other senior American interlocutors have been discussing the progress in India's ties with Pakistan, including complications arising from the patronage of terrorist groups by sections of the Pakistani establishment, and its nuclear posture.

The Pakistani headache featuring in talks with Doval was revealed by US Secretary of State John Kerry, when he referred cryptically to Washington having "serious questions" about "some choices" being made in the region that "may accelerate possible arms construction."

"We've raised them with various partners in the region. So our hope is that this Nuclear Security Summit will contribute to everybody's understanding about our global responsibilities and choices,'' Kerry said, without directly naming Pakistan.

There was little doubt Kerry's remarks were directed at Pakistan, which has bailed out of the summit citing the terrorist attack in Lahore, one of dozens in the country over the past decade that has not persuaded its establishment to jettison a policy of fostering extremist groups.

''India has a very important role to play with respect to responsible stewardship of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. India has a long record of being a leader, of being responsible, and it is particularly important right now at a time when we see in the region some choices being made that may accelerate possible arms construction, which we have serious questions about,'' Kerry, with Doval beside him, said in a vote-of-confidence in New Delhi.

Earlier, President Obama telephoned Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to condole the death of more than 70 persons n the Lahore bombing, while also "expressing his understanding of Sharif's decision to cancel his visit to the United States and remain in Pakistan following this terrorist attack," according to the White House.

''This callous and appalling attack against innocent civilians, many of them women and children, underscores the critical danger that terrorism poses inside Pakistan, throughout the region, and around the globe,'' a White House readout of the call quoted Obama as saying.

Pakistan has sent a low-level representation to the summit, evidently apprehensive about having to explain its decision to build tactical battlefield nuclear weapons in a situation where its home grown terrorists and mutinous extremist military personnel have attacked several military installations in the country, including the army headquarters and navy and air force bases.

The possibility of a nuclear conflagration between India and Pakistan had been dubbed a ''pink flamingo'' scenario, from a term coined by security analyst Frank Hoffman to describe events that are predictable and fully visible, but almost entirely ignored by policymakers (as opposed to Black Swans, which are unpredictable and unforeseen).

Evidently, THIS pink flamingo is not something that will remain unnoticed or unaddressed.


The choice of Doval to play Sherpa to the Prime Ministerial visit rather than external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj suggests the New Delhi and Washington are developing a deep security relationship in addition to extensive military and diplomatic ties. Enigmatic comments and cryptic statements bear this out without shedding too much light on the depth of the engagement.

For instance, following Doval's meeting with US national security advisor Susan Rice, NSC spokesman Ned Price said the two sides discussed US-India counterterrorism cooperation, ''including against Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed,'' specifically highlighting the two terrorist groups that have long been fostered by the Pakistani military.

The statement at the end of Doval's meeting with Kerry was less specific, but still mentioned counter-terrorism amid a summit primarily centering on nuclear security.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 31 Mar 2016 19:08

Modi should have taken Putin's cue and not paid any heed to this proliferation Ayatollah led conference agenda.
Fear an impetuous Modi at Washington nuclear security summit
Bharat Karnad.
A more reasonable explanation is that the authors — charter members of the US nonproliferation mafia, mean to somehow achieve, partially or in full, that old Washington nonproliferation policy goal of “cap, freeze, rollback” using NSS as medium.


Washington, she averred, was going to use Modi’s presence at the summit “to highlight steps that India has taken in its own nuclear security to go beyond, perhaps, some of the activities that it has done before.” (emphasis mine). What are these “activities” Modi may be cajoled into implementing “beyond” India’s present commitments (such as setting up the Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership to, among other things, host workshops organized by the US State Department’s Partnership for Nuclear Security? (This GCNEP is coming up in Haryana, some 200 kms from Delhi.)


And/or, will Modi, under the rubric of “Building Confidence in Effective Nuclear Security” (pp.70- 74 in Harvard report) agree to open India’s nuclear security system for international and US scrutiny to assess it capacity to deal with “security system design-based threats”. This will require foreign experts “to visit and examine security procedures”. This desire for more classified information about the country’s “approaches to nuclear security” will be legitimated as India merely following through on its UNSCR 1540 obligations, ‘coz nuclear materials from India could be used to threaten other states. MOdi could also be persuaded by the smoothtalking Obama to permit “technical cooperation programs”, inclusive of “in-depth discussions” and visits by foreign experts to “key nuclear facilities” (pp.70-71). Modi could moreover be gently pushed into accepting “bilateral dialogues” with the US of the kind that Washington has ongoing with Pakistan and China. As the Harvard study states plainly: “Not all security improvements depend on cooperation with the United States. But [such] cooperation often accelerates such improvements and offers increased assurance that they are really taking place.” (p.91)


Should Modi allow further inroads, ostensibly to advance nuclear security, for nothing more than a pat on the back from Obama, India, already on a slippery nonproliferation slope as is already evident, will be reduced to another of America’s camp followers. No wonder US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, soon to visit New Delhi, is reportedly demanding the Modi regime sign the three “foundational agreements” – LSA, CISMOA, and BECA to cement the military relationship between the two countries (as apprehended in a previous post — “India in America’s coils”).

NSS-4 and the foundational ags could mark India’s pell-mell descent. Good bye India as great power.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5551
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby vishvak » 31 Mar 2016 21:48

So what is the fear? Proliferation by pakis?

The most important part is to have doctrine clear (already clear) and nuke safety mechanisms solid (clean record already).

This drama is like saying that it was legit appropriate to ignore population karsevak targeted at godhra chanting Bharat mata ki Jan Jai shri Ram but also legit to selectively shout on human rights of ones targeted in scale up riots.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 01 Apr 2016 01:39

What Pink Flamingo nonsense. Its Black elephant in the room that is gnored.
Moron.

Anyway CR is giving sarkari bakwas from chota mota babus.

When Pakistan is the problem and is not going to be present, what's the point in going a summit on loose nukes?

In retrospect the TTP attack came very fortuitously for Badmash to skip the summit. He might have had it staged.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Apr 2016 07:10

ramana wrote:If failing states like Pakistan can have nukes, why can't responsible states like Japan and South Korea have nukes when faced with unstable North Korea?
Common factor in Pakistan and North Korea nukes is China.

Trump is right US can't afford to bankrupt itself as all China has to do is enable more states to acquire nukes.
Who am I to argue with a potential US President wanting to cut back on US hard power projection capabilities. But when there is a vacuum and it begs to be filled, who will fill the power vacuum? Korea has traditional confuscian era affiliations with the Chinese. They are not going to put nuclear weapons on each other, so easily. A pull back would mean Indonesia certainly tilts towards China. If Japan and S. Korea are not to be defended then what use being in Guam and there goes Philippines. The entire ring fence around the island chain opens up, freeing China to venture into adjoining Oceans.

I would not mind a US pull back, provided I can see an advantage for India? IMHO: India needs US in the region for another 30 years at least, so that China's threats remain hinged in that region, for an unhinged China will look for opportunities in our pond. Now, I would not mind a pull back of the US from the Indian ocean/Persian Gulf a little earlier. Trump can always say, we do not need the oil, so why be in those godforsaken sands!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23755
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Apr 2016 13:59

Barack Obama seeks reduction of nuclear arsenal in India, Pakistan - PTI
India and Pakistan need to make progress in reducing their nuclear arsenal and develop military doctrines so that they do not "continually move in the wrong direction", US President Barack Obama said today.

"One of the challenges that we're going to have here is that it is very difficult to see huge reductions in our nuclear arsenal unless the United States and Russia, as the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, are prepared to lead the way," Obama said.

"The other area where I think we need to see progress is Pakistan and India, that subcontinent, making sure that as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction," Obama told a press conference at the end of the two-day Nuclear Security Summit here.

"We have to take a look at the Korean Peninsula because North Korea is in a whole different category and poses the most immediate set of concerns for all of us, one that we are working internationally to focus on," the US President said.

Obama's remarks are seen in the context of growing American uneasiness about the rapidly increasing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan {If so, why fortuitously include India in that?}.

Last month US Secretary of State John Kerry had cited the example of America and Russia which are working to further reduce their nuclear arsenal, while urging Pakistan to review its nuclear policy.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Apr 2016 19:59

Predicted NSS-4 outcome: Modi gave much, India (once again) got stiffed Bharat Karnad.
The fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit in Washington has ended in Washington. While some of the apprehensions expressed in a previous post on this subject have been borne out, some of PM Modi’s commitments could become problematic depending on how exactly India follows through on them.

The most damaging turn of events was US President Obama’s re-hyphenation of India and Pakistan and, much worse, implicitly reaffirming US’ longstanding nonproliferation policy objective of “cap, freeze, rollback” of nuclear weapons capabilities in South Asia. “We need to see progress in Pakistan and India [to] make sure”, he demanded, somewhat magisterially, “that as they develop military doctrines that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction” as regards expanding “nuclear arsenals” “especially those with small tactical nuclear weapons that could be at greater risk of theft.”

Modi responded, not by asking Obama to stop lecturing and defining the nuclear deterrence requirements of other countries but to get going with drastic reductions of US and P-5 nuclear weapons inventories but, with Washington’s soft-pedaling of Pakistan-sourced terrorism in mind, carping about treating terrorism as “someone else’s problem and that ‘his’ terrorist is not ‘my’ terrorist… All States must completely abide by their international obligations.”

In light of the US government’s approach and attitude some of the six commitments Modi voiced at the summit could create trouble for India. These commitments are:

1) India’s continuing to accord a high national priority to nuclear security through strong institutional framework, independent regulatory agency and trained and specialised manpower, to include physical and cyber barriers, technological approaches, setting up a facility for medical grade ‘Moly-99’ using low enriched Uranium and using vitrified forms of vulnerable radioisotopes such as Ceasium-137.
2) India will counter nuclear smuggling and strengthen the national detection architecture for nuclear and radioactive material, with a dedicated counter-nuclear smuggling team.
3) India will support IAEA’s central role in nuclear security by a further contribution of $1 million to the nuclear security fund and a workshop to be held in India with IAEA experts on International Physical Protection Assessment Service (IPPAS).
4) India will join trilateral initiative of NSS chairs (US, South Korea, Netherlands) to oversee the implementation in subscribing states of measures to strengthen nuclear security.
5) India will also join three gift baskets for this summit in priority areas of countering nuclear smuggling, nuclear security contact group in Vienna, and sharing of best practices through Centres of Excellence such as India’s own.
6) India will host a meeting of Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in 2017 to complement the international conference on countering nuclear smuggling planned with Interpol. The nuclear security architecture in the country is to be strengthened and participate in strengthening security architecture at the global level.

For example, items #3,4,5 & 6 all involve international/multilateral/IAEA arrangements which could be the tool used by the US in particular and the P-5 states generally to penetrate the secret parts of the nuclear establishment under cover of progressing and providing technical “expert” advise for increasing the security and protection of dangerous materials. It could be used to suborn Indian participants with the aim ultimately of subverting the Indian weapons program, wherewithal, and capabilities. By now most countries have got the hang of a basic feature of Indian reality: Indians, by and large, are “bikaoo” (purchasable) — all that needs determining is their price.BK is pissed

Further, the Indian side, as per a statement released to the media that seems to have been drafted without any apparent awareness of where the country’s strategic and national security interests actually lie, crowed about India’s export controls list and guidelines being harmonized with those of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and how it “looks forward” to strengthening its contribution to shared non-proliferation objectives through membership of the export controls regimes. This commitment, mind you, is despite India’s being prevented from getting anywhere within smelling distance of membership in NSG, and which membership will obtain once Pakistan too (shepherded by China) gains entry into it.

To further emphasize its “good boy” status, and hammer a few more nails into its own nuclear coffin, India at NSS-4 also pointedly referred to its enacting the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems Act, 2005, giving effect, inter alia, to India’s obligations under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540.

So ends another of Modi’s forays into the outside world.
The overall point is, we need to get out of these good boy routines and approach the issue from what serves our interests first! India First, Mr. Modi?

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby krishna_krishna » 03 Apr 2016 19:19

Very disappointing. Atleast NSA their I thought some sense will prevail. Modi should have sent foreign minister for the trip end of the story

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Apr 2016 20:49

India lost a major opportunity to highlight the collusion of China and Pakistan on nuclear weapons - the biggest threat to security of these weapons. In return India got a preachy NPA scripted lecture for the chief of NPA's - Obama along with an insult of stature as China was treated as a "leader" of this conference with a joint communique with the US on the summit. Why the hell did Modi go there? Where is my nationalist government?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby member_20453 » 04 Apr 2016 21:34

There is only one way to send a msg to the Pakis, we need to resume nuke testing. WTF is up with the moratorium on testing. I say we light up pokhran again with a few Themo nuke tests. Let's see who will do what. I for one don't think any one inlcuding the US has the balls to say shit. There are far too many lucrative deals on the table. We are trying too hard to be Mr. Goody two shoes of the region. Also we need to regularize large scale excercises of the IA/ IN/ IAF, 4-5 times a year, excercise 2-3 strike corps at a time.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby member_22733 » 04 Apr 2016 22:14

I think Modi has a soft spot for unkil. He behaves as if he had not seen through unkils duplicity.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2016 22:17

SSridhar wrote:Barack Obama seeks reduction of nuclear arsenal in India, Pakistan - PTI
India and Pakistan need to make progress in reducing their nuclear arsenal and develop military doctrines so that they do not "continually move in the wrong direction", US President Barack Obama said today.

"One of the challenges that we're going to have here is that it is very difficult to see huge reductions in our nuclear arsenal unless the United States and Russia, as the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, are prepared to lead the way," Obama said.

"The other area where I think we need to see progress is Pakistan and India, that subcontinent, making sure that as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction," Obama told a press conference at the end of the two-day Nuclear Security Summit here.

"We have to take a look at the Korean Peninsula because North Korea is in a whole different category and poses the most immediate set of concerns for all of us, one that we are working internationally to focus on," the US President said.

Obama's remarks are seen in the context of growing American uneasiness about the rapidly increasing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan {If so, why fortuitously include India in that?}.

Last month US Secretary of State John Kerry had cited the example of America and Russia which are working to further reduce their nuclear arsenal, while urging Pakistan to review its nuclear policy.



Basically Obama has lost the way and forgot what was the theme of the NSS. Just some gratuitous NPA bashing of India in his last conference/summit.

Fellow will be seen wandering in North India as a wandering monk after retirement.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby member_22733 » 04 Apr 2016 22:21

Its not ombaba that's the issue, it's who got the inputs and made that speech for him to parrot. Can smell the stench of the Fraggy battam here.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 04 Apr 2016 22:51

It's really about new financial architecture, China, and oil at this point.

US won't part w/ tech or its love for Pakistan.

This is all just feel good maya.

US deep state = banks, church, and MIC

India in perpetual kichdi state suits them just fine.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Apr 2016 20:28

Making the nuclear point
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced several contributions to nuclear security. India will participate in the informal international “contact group”, which fosters cooperation in countering nuclear smuggling. Its own Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership (GCNEP) will participate in the group on nuclear security training and support centres and centres of excellence. India has also announced that none of its research reactors will be using HEU henceforth.We really do have to understand India's HEU production capabilities, with Chitradurga's capacities in mind. Why would we not build HEU reactor designs? Hope we are not precluding the building of more HEU production facilities?

In the past, India had avoided joining such groups known as “gift baskets”, which brought together countries to cooperate on a voluntary basis on nuclear security issues.

These announcements underscore India’s credentials to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

Modi also used the summit to focus on the threat to nuclear security posed by state sponsorship of terrorist groups and the pursuit of risky escalatory policies such as the deployment of theatre nuclear weapons. Though Pakistan was not named, the target was obvious. And, yet, in his closing remarks, Obama put India in the same bracket as Pakistan, calling on both “to make sure that as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction”. Old habits of hyphenation are difficult to shed despite the much vaunted India-US strategic partnership.

The writer, a former foreign secretary, is chairman, RIS and senior fellow, CPR

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 07 Apr 2016 21:23

ShauryaT wrote: Hope we are not precluding the building of more HEU production facilities?

If we do that we're not going to have any more nuclear powered boats are we?

I can't give a staright answer but whenever I read about HEU in the "nuclear related media" they are talking about the weapons and proliferation potential of HEU. HEU is the easiest material to make into a working bomb. And HEU over some percentage (70?) is required only for bombs. This may be a signal that India does not require HEU fo bombs. We have known that for a long time.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Apr 2016 23:32

Shiv ji: The MEA document says this.

India’s National Progress Report, Nuclear Security Summit 2016
Nuclear Material: The use of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) instead of High Enriched Uranium (HEU) to preclude the threat from the misuse of HEU is one of the aims of the global nuclear security community. The only reactor in India using HEU has been shut down and the planned replacement reactor will not use HEU. India is setting up a facility for the production of medical grade Mo-99 by the uranium fission route using LEU targets. This will be used for the manufacture of Mo-99/Tc-99m generator for use in hospitals. The LEU targets will be made in India and irradiated in an indigenous research reactor. Pursuit of a closed fuel cycle and the manner in which India goes about it further ensures security of nuclear materials. India is strictly observing the principle of "reprocess to reuse” whereby reprocessing of the spent fuel and commissioning of fast reactors are being synchronized to preclude any build-up of a plutonium stockpile. IOW: Are we precluding the use of plutonium for weapons from the spent fuel? If so, that for India would be a limited FMCT!!?? Cs-137, a useful isotope, is being recovered from the high level waste arising from reprocessing spent fuel from thermal reactors. This is helping to meet the demand of radioisotopes for various applications. India has submitted proposals in the NSS process on the technology dimension of nuclear security.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 01:23

I am so impressed by this LS TV discussion. Especially liked the moderator, she was honest and informed (even if by western sources). Wish MSM stops the theaterics and gets real policy discussions on the table for the public.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Apr 2016 06:57

ShauryaT wrote: India is strictly observing the principle of "reprocess to reuse” whereby reprocessing of the spent fuel and commissioning of fast reactors are being synchronized to preclude any build-up of a plutonium stockpile.

This is pretty clear isn't it?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 07:27

^As in? My understanding was the unsafeguarded spent fuel was a potential source for WgPU? This is being negated as to be used for the FBR only? So, no low burn mode spent fuels for WgPu? What am I missing?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Apr 2016 09:03

ShauryaT wrote:^As in? My understanding was the unsafeguarded spent fuel was a potential source for WgPU? This is being negated as to be used for the FBR only? So, no low burn mode spent fuels for WgPu? What am I missing?

I do not see it being negated. It only says that as much fuel will be reprocessed as is required for FBR and no "build up" will occur. Does it say "FBR only" anywhere? I am unable to see any other promise in there.

Anyone can see the gap in the wording if he looks for it and does not believe to start with that India is committing nuclear harakiri. Promises are being made and those promises will be kept. Promises that are not made need not be kept.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 19:36

If it "precludes" a plutonium buildup and spent fuel in principle is to be reused as fuel for the fast reactors, then together it has the effect of "only" does it not? Now, one can take refuge under the more legal semantics of the word "only" but the above also makes the intent ("strict principle") of the spent fuel quite clear to me. But, not all is lost, for the FBR can produce WgPu as long as they remain out of safeguards.

I am paranoid that Indian players may do harakiri on the matter, you can legitimately accuse me of being so. I have reasoned precedence to go by. We know the intent of the US on this matter, it is to get our FBR's under safeguards. This is not a matter of sell out or anything by the interlocutors in play but a view of where and how our interests needs to be protected and to what end, which is a larger debate. I am afraid that under the rubric of being minimalistic and a narrow view of our interests, we end up compromising and giving in to US interests, as they see it.

I will continue to point out the compromises to Indian interests, as I see them.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Apr 2016 19:39

ShauryaT wrote:I am paranoid that Indian players may do harakiri on the matter, you can legitimately accuse me of being so. .


Fair enough. The document only says "Pu Build up".

As I see it the concern expressed is not about bombs but about fissile material. Stored fissile material can be stolen. If it is not stored it can be put to good use. FBR is one use. Bombs is another. Either way no "build up"

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 08 Apr 2016 20:16

Shiv,

I don't think there is really any other way to spin this. Fissile "build up" is almost always used within the scope of weaponization. A post-modern interpretation of the term isn't doing it justice.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Apr 2016 20:39

RoyG wrote:Shiv,

I don't think there is really any other way to spin this. Fissile "build up" is almost always used within the scope of weaponization. A post-modern interpretation of the term isn't doing it justice.


From the legal standpoint, this is an issue of interpretation. There is enough ambiguity in that statement. I refer to the statement alone and its possible meanings.

If I was a Pakistani I would trash that statement as insincere because it only says that reprocessing will be balanced against FBR so there is no "build up". I would say that India can and will cheat without actually breaking any provisions of that statement. If Pakistan had made that statement it means that it will cheat. If no reprocessed Pu is going to be used for weapons, that should be stated up front or else it means nothing. If we intend to play by the rules set for us by others we need to issue a much better statement than that one.

Unless there is a wink-and-nod agreement between India and other high caste NSG nations it won't be long before some country demands that the statement be amended with an explicit promise not to use any reprocess Pu for weapons


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 111 guests