DOCSLIB.ORG

The India-Pakistan Military Balance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The India-Pakistan Military Balance CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 To download: csis.org To comment: [email protected] The India-Pakistan Military Balance Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy May 2002 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. May be quoted or excerpted with proper attribution. No further reproduction in full is permitted without the author’s permission. India-Pakistani Military Balance 5/31/02 Page ii List of Tables and Charts The India-Pakistani Military Balance: A Commentary................................................................................................3 • The Kashmir Scenario and Asymmetric Warfare ............................................................................................3 • Bypassing Kashmir and Escalating Conventional Warfare..............................................................................3 • Nuclear Games.................................................................................................................................................3 • Comparative Military Effort ............................................................................................................................4 • Comparative Force Quality..............................................................................................................................4 • Comparative Land Power ................................................................................................................................4 • Comparative Air Power ...................................................................................................................................5 • Comparative Sea Power...................................................................................................................................5 India-Pakistani Military Expenditures: 1988-2001......................................................................................................7 South Asian Military Expenditures By Selected Nation: 1998-2002...........................................................................8 Total Military Forces 2002: Part 1.............................................................................................................................9 Total Military Forces in 2002: Part 2 .......................................................................................................................10 Military Manpower....................................................................................................................................................11 Main Battle Tanks: 2001-2002 .................................................................................................................................12 Armored Fighting Vehicles: 2001-2002 ...................................................................................................................13 Artillery Weapons in Key Powers: 2001-2002 .........................................................................................................14 Fixed and Rotary Wing Combat Aircraft: 2001-2002 ..............................................................................................16 Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft: 2001-2002.................................................................................................................17 Rotary Wing Combat Aircraft: 2001-2002 ...............................................................................................................18 Naval Combat Ships: 2001-2002..............................................................................................................................19 Major Naval Combat Ships: 2001-2002 ...................................................................................................................20 Western Naval Combat Ships Affecting the Asian Balance: 2001-2002..................................................................21 CIA Estimate of Indian Developments in Weapons of Mass Destruction .................................................................22 CIA Estimate of Indian Missile Force Trends – January 2002 ..................................................................................23 US Department of Defense Estimate of Indian Actions and Intentions Involving Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons ....................................................................................................................................................................24 India and Weapons of Mass Destruction ...................................................................................................................27 Delivery Systems ...............................................................................................................................................27 Chemical Weapons ............................................................................................................................................30 Biological Weapons...........................................................................................................................................31 Nuclear Weapons...............................................................................................................................................31 Missile Defenses................................................................................................................................................34 US CIA Estimate of Pakistani Force Developments as of September 2001 ..............................................................35 US Department of Defense Estimate of Pakistani Actions and Intentions Involving Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons ....................................................................................................................................................36 CIA Estimate of Pakistani Missile Force Trends – January 2002..............................................................................39 Pakistan and Weapons of Mass Destruction..............................................................................................................40 Delivery Systems ...............................................................................................................................................40 Chemical Weapons ............................................................................................................................................42 Biological Weapons...........................................................................................................................................43 Nuclear Weapons...............................................................................................................................................43 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. The India-Pakistani Military Balance 5/31/02 Page 3 The India-Pakistani Military Balance: A Commentary The attached document provides a reference on Indian and Pakistani military expenditures, total conventional forces, missile developments, and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Summary graphs are provided for conventional forces and declassified US intelligence estimates are summarized for missile forces and weapons of mass destruction. There are several aspects of the India-Pakistani military balance that should, be kept in mind if the current crisis tilts towards war: • The Kashmir Scenario and Asymmetric Warfare Kashmir offers Pakistan a number of advantages in asymmetric warfare as well as a political relief value for nationalists and Islamic extremists. The terrain makes it extremely difficult to seal off borders and conduct counterinsurgency operations. Some Indian military feel it takes a manpower superiority of 30-50:1 to secure given areas. The population is divided but generally favors the Pakistanis and Islamists. Artillery duels accomplish little, and limited Indian advances across the Line of Control simply place India in the same difficult tactical position in a different place. Pakistan can deploy a holding force and support insurgents at a far lower cost than India must pay to deploy the forces necessary occupy Kashmir and defend the dividing line. Moreover, Pakistan can always back away from confrontation or fighting and then resume the struggle on equally advantageous terms, and India cannot significantly reduce its troop presence in the area. Logistics and lines of communication do not really favor anyone, but India must rely heavily on a single road to the area near the Line of Control. India has little to gain from a direct frontal advance on Pakistani forces, which would have excellent defensive positions. It can launch air raids against training camps and military facilities, but the camps can easily be rebuilt and many Pakistani facilities are already sheltered to deal with artillery attacks. Indian air assaults with ground troops would be possible, but involve significant risk of ambushes and losses to Pakistani air defenses. At the end of such raids, insurgents or Pakistani troops would often have dispersed, leaving India with little benefit. • Bypassing Kashmir and Escalating Conventional Warfare In contrast, Pakistan is very vulnerable to a major Indian attack using conventional forces. It has little strategic depth and many key cities like Lahore are within 100 miles of the border. The terrain is not optimal – much of it is desert
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIPRI Yearbook 2018: Armaments, Disarmament and International
    world nuclear forces 273 VII. Pakistani nuclear forces shannon n. kile and hans m. kristensen Pakistan continues to prioritize the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons and delivery systems as part of its ‘full spectrum deterrence posture’ vis-à-vis India. It is estimated that Pakistan possessed 140–50 war- heads as of January 2018 (see table 6.8). Pakistan’s nuclear weapon arsenal is likely to expand significantly over the next decade, although estimates of the increase in warhead numbers vary considerably.1 Pakistan is believed to be gradually increasing its military fissile material holdings, which include both plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) (see section X). Pakistan’s plutonium production complex is located at Khushab in the province of Punjab. It consists of four operational heavy water nuclear reactors and a heavy water production plant.2 Pakistan appears to be increasing its capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel—that is, to chemically separate plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel. A small reprocessing plant has been expanded at the New Laboratories facility of the Pakistan Institute of Science and Technology (PINSTECH) near Rawal- pindi. A larger reprocessing plant has been constructed at the Chashma Nuclear Power Complex in Punjab and may already be operational.3 Uranium enrichment takes place at the gas centrifuge plant in the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) complex at Kahuta in Punjab and at a smaller plant located at Gadwal, also in Punjab. A new uranium enrichment centri- fuge plant may be under construction in the KRL complex at Kahuta.4 Pakistan’s capacity to produce HEU for nuclear weapons is constrained by its limited indigenous supply of natural uranium.5 Aircraft The Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) Mirage III and Mirage V combat aircraft are the most likely aircraft to have been given a nuclear delivery role.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
    Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Paul K. Kerr Analyst in Nonproliferation Mary Beth Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation August 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34248 Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Summary Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal probably consists of approximately 110-130 nuclear warheads, although it could have more. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and deploying additional nuclear weapons and new types of delivery vehicles. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is widely regarded as designed to dissuade India from taking military action against Pakistan, but Islamabad’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” have led some observers to express concern about an increased risk of nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India, which also continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the security of its nuclear arsenal. Moreover, Pakistani and U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations about a procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A.Q. Khan, Islamabad has taken a number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as strengthened export control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation programs, have improved Pakistan’s nuclear security. However, instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question. Some observers fear radical takeover of the Pakistani government or diversion of material or technology by personnel within Pakistan’s nuclear complex.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK
    Occasional Paper No. 2 A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. Monitoring Proliferation Threats Project MONTEREY INSTITUTE CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES THE CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS) is the largest non-governmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues. Dr. William C. Potter is the director of CNS, which has a staff of more than 50 full- time personnel and 65 student research assistants, with offices in Monterey, CA; Washington, DC; and Almaty, Kazakhstan. The mission of CNS is to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. For more information on the projects and publications of CNS, contact: Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies 425 Van Buren Street Monterey, California 93940 USA Tel: 831.647.4154 Fax: 831.647.3519 E-mail: [email protected] Internet Web Site: http://cns.miis.edu CNS Publications Staff Editor Jeffrey W. Knopf Managing Editor Sarah J. Diehl Copyright © Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., 1999. OCCASIONAL PAPERS AVAILABLE FROM CNS: No. 1 Former Soviet Biological Weapons Facilities in Kazakhstan: Past, Present, and Future, by Gulbarshyn Bozheyeva, Yerlan Kunakbayev, and Dastan Yeleukenov, June 1999 No. 2 A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK, by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., November 1999 No. 3 Nonproliferation Regimes at Risk, Michael Barletta and Amy Sands, eds., November 1999 Please contact: Managing Editor Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies 425 Van Buren Street Monterey, California 93940 USA Tel: 831.647.3596 Fax: 831.647.6534 A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK [Note: Page numbers given do not correctly match pages in this PDF version.] Contents Foreword ii by Timothy V.
    [Show full text]
  • Missile Threat Reduction and Monitoring in South Asia1
    Missile Threat Reduction and Monitoring in South Asia 1 Kent L. Biringer issile -based threats are becoming an ever-increasing element of the strategic landscape in South MAsia. As India and Pakistan induct missiles into military units and push the performance envelope of missile capabilities, it is important to assess ways to limit the threats posed by these missiles. Regional stability with respect to missiles has both political and technical components. From a deterrence standpoint, striving to maintain some parity in capabilities could be a politically stabilizing factor in reducing the likelihood of conflict. Introduction of missiles might serve to correct imbalances in nuclear or conventional capabilities. On the other hand, as the inventories and types of missiles increase and as they are deployed, there could be an escalation of tension. These actions will result in more movement of systems, a rush to deploy new systems, the need for more testing, greater numbers of people with access to the systems, and the need for more distributed control. These and other factors raise concerns over system safety, security, and interpretation of intent. Together these developments serve to introduce instabilities that may outweigh the deterrence benefits. Missiles are of primary concern because of their potential use as delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The short flight-times and lack of recall ability make them more destabilizing than aircraft- delivered weapons. Many of the military advantages of missile systems, such as mobility, speed, and long range make them weapons of choice. Transparency for missile programs may offer the prospect of building confidence and reducing threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan Tests Shaheen-3 and Shaheen-1A Missiles
    CAPS In Focus 25 Feb 2016 www.capsindia.org 24/16 PAKISTAN TESTS SHAHEEN-3 AND SHAHEEN-1A MISSILES Gp Capt Ravinder Singh Chhatwal (Retd.) Senior Fellow, CAPS Introduction In March 2015 Pakistan carried out the first test of its most advanced 2750 km range, Shaheen-3 Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM)1. The second test for this missile was carried out on December 11, 2015. The second test was closely followed by a test of its 900 km Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM) Shaheen1A, on December 15, 20152. Shaheen-3 is an improved version of the 1500 km Shaheen-2 and can cover entire India. It is the longest range missile in Pakistan’s inventory and is capable of carrying nuclear or conventional warheads. Shaheen-1A is an improved version of the 750 km Shaheen-1 missile. Pakistan has claimed that the Shaheen missile programme is indigenous but there are Image: Shaheen 1A being test fired from undisclosed reports that Chinese engineers have helped test range in Pakistan. Pakistan in the Shaheen-1 programme3. The Source: Inter Services Public Relations Pakistan, Press Release No PR382/2015-ISPR, December 15, 2015. Shaheen series of missiles are all solid fuel road 1 Centre for Air Power Studies | @CAPS_India | Centre for Air Power Studies CAPS In Focus 25 Feb 2016 www.capsindia.org mobile systems. This article briefly discusses launched. Both these missiles benefited from the Pakistan’s Shaheen missile programme. knowledge gained in launching sounding rockets in the 1960’s for which NASA (National Background Aeronautics and Space Administration) of USA, Pakistan started to develop knowledge on assisted Pakistan.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan's Nuclear Behaviour and Deterrence Breakdown
    CAPS In Focus 01 September 2020 www.capsindia.org 28/20 Pakistan’s Nuclear Behaviour and Deterrence Breakdown Nasima Khatoon Research Associate, CAPS Keywords: Pakistan, Nuclear, Missile systems, MIRV, Nuclear deterrence Pakistan started to develop nuclear weapon in the official statements of Pakistan armed forces2. These changes in nuclear posture and inclusion 1972 after the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971. It of new technologies have the potential to impact conducted the first nuclear test on 28 and 30 the deterrence stability in the region. The May 1998 in response to India’s nuclear test that evolution in nuclear posture has come into being was carried out in the same month. Since its with the introduction of tactical nuclear missile inception, Pakistan’s nuclear development Nasr and submarine-launched cruise missile programme and nuclear strategy have largely Babur-3. With the introduction of Babur-3 remained India centric and it essentially seeks to Pakistan has also claimed to have credible deter India’s conventional force superiority. second-strike capability3. A close look at changes in Pakistan’s Pakistan perceives India’s military nuclear policy over the years indicates this India modernisation and development in the field of centric posture. While its position has remained nuclear & missile programme as a serious threat constant on some policies like the possibility of and seeks to neutralise this impact by further nuclear first use, Pakistan’s nuclear posture has developing nuclear and missile capabilities. This been witnessing constant evolution on policy like threat perception is clearly visible from the fact minimum credible deterrence1. Over time, the that Pakistan’s longest-range missile Shaheen III strategy of minimum credible deterrence has is developed to cover all the parts of India changed to credible minimum deterrence, including Andaman and Nicobar Islands that are credible minimum full spectrum deterrence and “being developed as strategic bases”4.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan
    Order Code RL31900 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Weapons of Mass Destruction: Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan Updated November 28, 2006 Sharon A. Squassoni Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Weapons of Mass Destruction: Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan Summary In October 2002, the United States confronted North Korea about its alleged clandestine uranium enrichment program. Soon after, the Agreed Framework collapsed, North Korea expelled international inspectors, and withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). U.S. intelligence officials claimed Pakistan was a key supplier of uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, and some media reports suggested that Pakistan had exchanged centrifuge enrichment technology for North Korean help in developing longer range missiles. U.S. official statements leave little doubt that cooperation occurred, but there are significant details missing on the scope of cooperation and the role of Pakistan’s government. North Korea and Pakistan both initially denied that nuclear technology was provided to North Korea; President Musharraf admitted, however, in 2006 that such technology had been transferred. This report describes the nature and evidence of the cooperation between North Korea and Pakistan in missiles and nuclear weapons, the impact of cooperation on their weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and on the international nonproliferation regime. It will be updated as events warrant. The roots of cooperation are deep. North Korea and Pakistan have been engaged in conventional arms trade for over 30 years. In the 1980s, as North Korea began successfully exporting ballistic missiles and technology, Pakistan began producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) at the Khan Research Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat
    NASIC-1031-0985-09 BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE THREAT national air and space intelligence center wright-patterson air force base Cover: top left: Iranian 2-Stage Solid-Propellant MRBM Launch Cover: background: Iranian 2-Stage Solid-Propellant MRBM Top left: Indian Agni II MRBM Background: North Korean Taepo Dong 2 ICBM/SLV TABLE OF CONTENTS Key Findings 3 Threat History 4 Warheads and Targets 5 Ballistic Missiles 6 Short-Range Ballistic Missiles 8 Medium-Range and Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles 14 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 18 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles 22 Land-Attack Cruise Missiles 26 Summary 30 photo credits Cover Top Left: AFP p. 12. Bottom right: Indian MOD p.23. Center: NIMA College Full page: AFP p. 13. Top: AFP Bottom left: Jane’s p. 2. Top left: ISNA Center: AFP Bottom right: TommaX, Inc./Military Parade Ltd. Full page: Nouth Korean Television Bottom: Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs p. 24. Top left: Wforum p. 3. Bottom right: FARS p. 14 Top left: Advanced Systems Laboratory Bottom left: Jane’s p. 4. Bottom left: German Museum, Munich Full page: Chinese Internet Right: Center for Defense Information Bottom right: German Museum, Munich p. 15. Top: ISNA p. 25. Top left: TommaX, Inc./Military Parade Ltd. p. 5. Bottom right: lonestartimes.com Bottom left: Chinese Internet Top right: NASIC p. 6 Top left: Pakistan Defense Force Bottom right: www.militarypictures.com Center: Wforum Full page: PLA Pictorial p. 16. Top left: AFP p. 26 Top left: AFP p. 7. Top left: Jane’s Bottom left: AFP Full page: Dausslt Top right: Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) Right: PA Photos p.
    [Show full text]
  • Hcoc Issue Brief – March 2021
    THE HCOC AND SOUTH ASIAN STATES HCoC Issue Brief – March 2021 About the Hague Code of Conduct In brief Adopted in 2002, the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCoC) is a politically binding instrument India’s and Pakistan’s aiming to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ballistic missiles are (WMD) delivery vehicles. Composed of a set of transparency and mostly designed as confidence-building measures, the HCoC is the only existing delivery vehicles for their multilateral instrument to focus on WMD delivery vehicles. Totalling nuclear weapons. While 93 subscribing states at its inception, the HCoC has now reached intrinsically linked to their national security, ballistic 143 subscribing states (April 2020). missiles also have regional security impli- When subscribing to the HCoC, states commit to abide by a set of cations for South Asia. UN treaties and international conventions on space security, to send an annual declaration regarding ballistic missile capacities Non-proliferation and and national policy on non-proliferation and disarmament treaties arms control efforts have and instruments; and to send pre-launch notifications prior to any so far been aimed at the missile or space launch. Documents are uploaded onto a dedicated bilateral level. Subscription to other online platform managed by Austria, which acts as the HCoC instruments including the Immediate Central Contact (Executive Secretariat). Subscription to HCoC remains low in the the HCoC is free of charge. region, although India joined the HCoC in 2016. While subscribing states are asked to exercise ‘maximum restraint’ in the development of ballistic capacities, it should be stressed that Given the high number they are proscribed neither from possessing ballistic missiles of missile tests and SLV launches, the HCoC nor from pursuing space launch activities.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Pakistan's Ballistic Missile Programme
    R5 - 06 NIAS Study - 2006 An Assessment of Pakistan's Ballistic Missile Programme Technical and Strategic Capability S. Chandrashekar Arvind Kumar Rajaram Nagappa International Strategic and Security Studies Programme NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES Bangalore, India An Assessment of Pakistan's Ballistic Missile Programme: Technical and Strategic Capability NIAS Study - 2006 S. Chandrashekar Arvind Kumar Rajaram Nagappa International Strategic and Security Studies Programme NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES Bangalore, India © National Institute of Advanced Studies 2006 Published by National Institute of Advanced Studies Indian Institute of Science Campus Bangalore - 560 012 ISBN 81-87663-70-7 Price: Rs. 500/- Typeset & Printed by Aditi Enterprises #17/6, 22nd Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar Magadi Road, Bangalore - 560 023 Mob: 92434 05168 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Director NIAS for initiating this project. His active support and encouragement has been of great help in getting such a complicated competence building study off the ground. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support from other NIAS and IIM Bangalore colleagues particularly Dr. Sonika Gupta of NIAS. Many former ISRO colleagues also helped in making sure that the technical basis for the study was on firm ground with comments on several drafts of this report. The authors would specially like to thank Mr. K.P. Basvarajappa of IIM Bangalore for his help in analysing images and in creating the database used in this analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballistic Missile Monitoring in Southern Asia
    SAND 2004-0317 Unlimited Release February 2004 Ballistic Missile Proliferation in Southern Asia: Options for Stabilization Arvind Kumar National Institute of Advanced Studies Bangalore, India Michael Vannoni Cooperative Monitoring Center Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper/34 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Cooperative Monitoring Center The Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) at Sandia National Laboratories assists political and technical experts from around the world to acquire the technology-based tools they need to assess, design, analyze, and implement nonproliferation, arms control, and other cooperative security measures. As part of its mission, the CMC sponsors research on cooperative security and the role of technology. Reports of that work are provided through the Occasional Papers series. Research is conducted by Sandia staff, international technical experts, and visiting scholars. (The CMC’s Visiting Scholars Program is administered by the Institute for Public Policy at the University of New Mexico.) For additional information on the CMC’s programs, visit the CMC home page on the World Wide Web at <http://www.cmc.sandia.gov> or write to: Cooperative Monitoring Center Sandia National Laboratories PO Box 5800 Mail Stop 1373 Albuquerque, NM 87185-1373 For specific information on this report contact: Michael Vannoni at the above address. This report was prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 and Livermore, CA 94550 4 Ballistic Missile Proliferation in Southern Asia Ballistic Missile Proliferation in Southern Asia: Options for Stabilization Abstract This study assesses the destabilizing and stabilizing effects of ballistic missile development, induction, and deployment in Southern Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
    Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs).
    [Show full text]