DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’S Two-Front Challenge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’S Two-Front Challenge AUGUST 2020 ISSUE NO. 394 Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’s Two-Front Challenge JOY MITRA ABSTRACT There are two streams of debate on India’s current nuclear doctrine: one on its current interpretation and deducing its form and what such form means for India’s overall nuclear strategy; and another, more internal to India, on what should be the Indian nuclear doctrine with respect to the evolving nature of threats. The two debates are not mutually exclusive. However, neither of them have contended with all conventional contingencies, in particular the two-front scenario or collusive threat. This brief problematises the collusive threat contingency with an overview of these debates to expound on the fundamental character and objective of the Indian nuclear doctrine. It explains the doctrine’s silence on the puzzle of two-front scenario along with India’s conventional inadequacies and prescribes an alternate formulation that bifurcates the country’s nuclear doctrine. Attribution: Joy Mitra, “Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’s Two Front Challenge,” ORF Issue Brief No. 394, August 2020, Observer Research Foundation. Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is a public policy think tank that aims to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India. ORF pursues these goals by providing informed analyses and in-depth research, and organising events that serve as platforms for stimulating and productive discussions. ISBN: © 2020 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, archived, retained or transmitted through print, speech or electronic media without prior written approval from ORF. Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’s Two-Front Challenge INTRODUCTION DEBATES ON DOCTRINE Doctrines are a function of threats, capabilities Both of these elements have been the subject and war objectives.1 Indian nuclear strategy of much analysis from scholars and experts. accounts for a complicated threat spectrum The fact that the “massive” formulation was that includes two formidable rivals in Pakistan introduced as a change from the previous and China with whom it has long running “punitive” formulation in the draft nuclear territorial disputes. The latter is superior doctrine in 1999,3 proved that India wanted to India in both conventional and nuclear to preclude the option of nuclear use capabilities, while the former has adopted a amongst its adversaries.4 This was also in ‘first-use’ nuclear doctrine with ambiguous red line with India’s objective of relying on its lines and a counter-escalatory conventional conventional capability to operationalise doctrine based on “quid-pro-quo-plus” in a deterrence by punishment strategy. This support of low-intensity proxy warfare. India has been a particularly preferred option has a singular doctrine to cater for the entire against Pakistan. However, Pakistan’s first- nuclear-conventional threat spectrum. use doctrine and incorporation of tactical nuclear weapons in its force posture has India’s official nuclear doctrine, released led analysts to call for substitution of the by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) “massive retaliation” concept with a more in 2003, states a posture of “No First Use” “graduated” or “flexible” retaliation.5 This and in case of a first-strike (use) promises goes against the grain in the current nuclear retaliation that is “massive and designed doctrine because unlike the “massive” to inflict unacceptable damage”.2 They flow formulation, flexible response is more from the view held by the majority in the permissive of first use by the adversary.6 It Indian strategic affairs community, that is, however, noteworthy that “massive”— nuclear weapons have a political value despite being a clear break from “punitive”— in ensuring the survivability of the state is neither qualified nor quantified.7 There and deterring existential threats, rather is also no clear hint of a proportionate or than for any military effect or utility in disproportionate response.8 Moreover, this the battlefield. This sets the doctrinal formulation affords both counter-value and objective of avoiding a mutually damaging counter-force options as may be necessary in nuclear war, and second, it appreciates the a retaliation.9 Further, graduated retaliation special nature of nuclear weapons and the would place enormous pressure on India’s circumstances of their use. To that end, the nuclear command and control systems.10 NFU and the massive formulation together seek to deter conventional hostilities from A second debate has revolved around taking a nuclear turn whether through ‘first India’s commitment to the NFU in a crisis use’ or ‘first strike’. situation. In 2018, Christopher Clary and 2 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 394 AUGUST 2020 Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’s Two-Front Challenge Vipin Narang in an articlea wrote about first-strike becomes a rational choice to India’s “counter-force temptations” where avoid the damage inflicted by first use.16 This they highlighted India’s growing unease is a more desirable option when the foremost with the NFU pledge. Clary and Narang objective of India’s nuclear doctrine to keep argued that India’s current nuclear doctrine the conflict from going nuclear is not met.17 is flexible enough to allow for a “first Other scholars like Rajesh Rajagopalan and strike” and a counterforce strategy (first Manpreet Sethi have consistently argued strike or second strike) based on the logic that such a change has not actualised, of damage limitation.11 As evidence, they and they cite another set of statements quoted statements from former and current that affirm NFU and argue that a ‘first- officials of the government, and pointed use’ posture would require a different set to India’s modernisation of the country’s of capabilities that will put India on an nuclear arsenal.12 In another piece, Kumar arms race trajectory.18 Shyam Saran writes, Sundaram and MV Ramana have noted “Infrastructure required for a first use or that India’s nuclear doctrine may not be a flexible response doctrine would be very reliable predictor of how India might behave different from what we have so far invested in a crisis.13 While the NFU may serve India’s in, and would require different command and interest in peacetime, it will make no sense control mechanisms”.19 Though both Clary to absorb the full impact of a potential first and Narang, and Sundaraman and Ramana nuclear strike or use, particularly when such bring out the increase in capacity in terms use is imminent.14 For instance, former of improvements in ISR related capabilities National Security Adviser Shivshankar and an increase in canisterisation20 implying Menon, though categorical about the higher readiness of use, only a part of retaliatory nature of the strike, has also the nuclear arsenal is at a higher level of indicated in his writings that India will have readiness. Rajagopalan has counter-argued no incentive to limit its response once the that the arsenal size required for taking out conflict had moved into the nuclear realm, to all of Pakistan’s long-range delivery systems allow a second iteration of nuclear response would be considerably greater than India from Pakistan.15 currently has or could potentially muster, apart from the need of residual capability This author has written earlier that this against another nuclear adversary—China.21 incentive of damage limitation during a In fact, all nuclear weapon states keep a part crisis when nuclear use is imminent, could of their strategic forces in a ready state, to shift the calculus in India’s decision-making enhance their retaliatory capabilities and as to the point that pre-emptive counterforce a measure of reasonable precaution.22 a Christopher Clary and Vipin Narang. "India's Counterforce Temptations: Strategic Dilemmas, Doctrine, and Capabilities." International Security 43, no. 3 (2019): 7-52 ORF ISSUE BRIEF No. 394 AUGUST 2020 3 Beyond Current Nuclear Doctrine Debates: Addressing India’s Two-Front Challenge In addition, given India’s “Cold Start” COLLUSIVE THREAT AND THE SILENCE operational concept and a doctrine of OF INDiaN NUCLEAR DOCTRINE “proactive strategy”,23 its reliance on superior conventional forces and a widening capability A third scenario has existed as a nuclear gap with Pakistan, imply that keeping the war contingency, in the realm of conventional from going nuclear is not only a declaratory war-fighting spectrum. This view has been doctrinal objective but also an operational held, for example, by Air Commander Jasjit imperative, notwithstanding the inherent Singh,28 who argued in 2003 that India complexities of the conventional-nuclear “must objectively assess what would be the interface.24 Even on the China front, latest scenarios where India would need to use studies show that India in fact maintains a nuclear weapons first, warranting a first- conventional edge in terms of mobilisations use strategy and its attendant costs?” He timelines and ability to concentrate air power went on to define two such contingencies— due to forward deployment and geographic one “a significant military setback, if not advantages.25 This has allowed India to move a decisive military defeat,” and second, a from a conventional stance of deterrence by “surprise breakthrough by the enemy with denial, to punishment.26 conventional forces.” The current Indian nuclear doctrine posits the NFU formulation These debates reveal a fundamental and for all cases including conventional living logic to the doctrine. Whether the contingencies, where it is water-tight on its doctrinal objective of avoiding nuclear first wording with no ambiguity over the NFU use or the incentive for damage-limitation holding up in a conventional battle. dominates during a crisis, the declaratory doctrine and operational postures, though India’s current doctrine aims to leverage separate, seamlessly tie into an overall conventional capability gap against Pakistan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Contents Introduction I STRATEGIC VISIONS for EAST ASIA Toward
    Contents Introduction I STRATEGIC VISIONS FOR EAST ASIA Toward Greater U.S.-Japan-India Strategic Dialogue and Coordination Mike Green Arc of Freedom and Prosperity Heigo Sato India’s Strategic Vision Suba Chandran II THE RISE OF CHINA Dealing with a Rising Power: India-China Relations and the Reconstruction of Strategic Partnerships Alka Acharya The Prospect of China Up to 2020: A View from Japan Yasuhiro Matsuda The United States and a Rising China Derek Mitchell III NONPROLIFERATION Strengthening the Nonproliferation Regime in the Era of Nuclear Renaissance: A Common Agenda for Japan, the United States, and India Nobumasa Akiyama Global Nonproliferation Dynamics: An Indian Perspective Lawrence Prabhakar Nonproliferation Players and their Policies Jon Wolfstal IV ENERGY SECURITY Trends in Energy Security Mikkal Herberg 1 Japan ’s Energy Security Policy Manabu Miyagawa India’s Energy Security Chietigj Bajpaee V ECONOMIC CONVERGENCE A U.S. Perspective of Economic Convergence in East Asia Krishen Mehta New Open Regionalism? Current Trends and Perspectives in the Asia-Pacific Fukunari Kimura VI SOUTHEAST ASIA U.S. Perspectives on Southeast Asia: Opportunities for a Rethink Ben Dolven Southeast Asia: A New Regional Order Nobuto Yamamoto India’s Role in Southeast Asia: The Logic and Limits of Cooperation with the United States and Japan Sadanand Dhume VII COUNTER-TERRORISM Japan’s Counterterrorism Policy Naofumi Miyasaka Counterterrorism Cooperation with the United States and Japan: An Indian Perspective Manjeet Singh Pardesi VIII MARITIME
    [Show full text]
  • India's Third-Tier Nuclear State Dilemma
    INDIA’S THIRD-TIER NUCLEAR STATE DILEMMA N Plus 20? Amit Gupta What political and security advantages can a third-tier nuclear state derive in the current international system? This article argues that nuclearization has left India with a third-tier nuclear force that will be difficult to use to acquire international power and prestige. Instead, it will have to use nuclearization as an instrument for pursuing broader foreign pol- icy goals that have a universalistic application. This is because nucleariza- tion did not lead to a discernible shift in India’s power and international status. Instead, India has emerged as a low-level nuclear power and thus been unable to obtain the advantages that first- and second-tier nuclear pow- ers possess. As the subtitle suggests, the situation is one of N plus 20–one of several states to have gone nuclear and thus diminished the status and value that comes from acquiring nuclear weapons. Background In 1998 India moved away from its policy of nuclear ambiguity or opacity to overly develop its nuclear weapons force. To discuss India’s goals, it is nec- essary to understand that Indian nuclear ambiguity was different from that of other states practicing this policy–Israel, Pakistan, and South Africa. The latter three countries saw nuclear weapons as providing security from their adversaries. Greater emphasis was placed on developing a credible nuclear capability. Little was said, however, by any of these countries on the politi- cal advantages of possessing nuclear weapons. India has been different from Amit Gupta is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Stonehill College, Easton, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Escalation Control and the Nuclear Option in South Asia
    Escalation Control and the Nuclear Option in South Asia Michael Krepon, Rodney W. Jones, and Ziad Haider, editors Copyright © 2004 The Henry L. Stimson Center All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the Henry L. Stimson Center. Cover design by Design Army. ISBN 0-9747255-8-7 The Henry L. Stimson Center 1111 19th Street NW Twelfth Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.223.5956 fax 202.238.9604 www.stimson.org Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................. v Abbreviations..................................................................................................... vii Introduction......................................................................................................... ix 1. The Stability-Instability Paradox, Misperception, and Escalation Control in South Asia Michael Krepon ............................................................................................ 1 2. Nuclear Stability and Escalation Control in South Asia: Structural Factors Rodney W. Jones......................................................................................... 25 3. India’s Escalation-Resistant Nuclear Posture Rajesh M. Basrur ........................................................................................ 56 4. Nuclear Signaling, Missiles, and Escalation Control in South Asia Feroz Hassan Khan ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Missile Defense and South Asia: an Indian Perspective……………………..………….……………..…..1 Rajesh Basrur
    The Impact of US Ballistic Missile Defenses on Southern Asia Michael Krepon and Chris Gagné, editors Report No. 46 July 2002 Copyright©2002 11 Dupont Circle, NW Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.223.5956 fax 202.238.9604 www.stimson.org About the Project he Henry L. Stimson Center has been working to promote regional security in South Asia since 1991. TThe project focuses heavily on nuclear risk reduction, confidence building, and Kashmir. The Center’s programming has five main components: Χ First, we release publications to stimulate thinking and problem-solving approaches on topics of interest. We are also interested in collaborations across borders to encourage networking. We place our publications and non-published work on the Stimson Center’s website (www.stimson.org). Χ Second, we engage in fieldwork in the region to learn more about subjects of interest. We also work with local co-sponsors to convene workshops in South Asia, reaching key target audiences: government officials, military officers, journalists, academics, and researchers. Χ Third, we hold a series of meetings in Washington for diplomats and military attachés, media, executive and legislative officials, and representatives from nongovernmental organizations. These meetings provide an opportunity to discuss problem-solving ideas in a congenial setting. Χ Fourth, we moderate a cross-border Internet dialogue, known as the Southern Asia Internet Forum (SAIF), designed to generate open dialogue, and broaden the scope of discussion, among individuals working on security issues in the region. The SAIF Dialogue may be accessed via our website. Χ Fifth, we host a Visiting Fellows program, whereby talented individuals from India, Pakistan, and China carry out research and writing at the Stimson Center.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Nuclear Odyssey
    India’s Nuclear Odyssey India’s Nuclear Andrew B. Kennedy Odyssey Implicit Umbrellas, Diplomatic Disappointments, and the Bomb India’s search for secu- rity in the nuclear age is a complex story, rivaling Odysseus’s fabled journey in its myriad misadventures and breakthroughs. Little wonder, then, that it has received so much scholarly attention. In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars focused on the development of India’s nuclear “option” and asked whether New Delhi would ever seek to exercise it.1 After 1990, attention turned to India’s emerg- ing, but still hidden, nuclear arsenal.2 Since 1998, India’s decision to become an overt nuclear power has ushered in a new wave of scholarship on India’s nu- clear history and its dramatic breakthrough.3 In addition, scholars now ask whether India’s and Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has stabilized or destabilized South Asia.4 Despite all the attention, it remains difªcult to explain why India merely Andrew B. Kennedy is Lecturer in Policy and Governance at the Crawford School of Economics and Gov- ernment at the Australian National University. He is the author of The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru: National Efªcacy Beliefs and the Making of Foreign Policy, which is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. The author gratefully acknowledges comments and criticism on earlier versions of this article from Sumit Ganguly, Alexander Liebman, Tanvi Madan, Vipin Narang, Srinath Raghavan, and the anonymous reviewers for International Security. He also wishes to thank all of the Indian ofªcials who agreed to be interviewed for this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Read a Panel I Paper by Vincent Wang
    38th Taiwan‐U.S. Conference on Contemporary China China Faces the Future July 14–15, 2009 Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC Session I: China’s External Grand Strategy “Chindia” or Rivalry? China’s Rise and the Role of Sino-Indian Relations in China’s External Strategy Vincent Wei-cheng Wang Department of Political Science University of Richmond (Draft. Do not quote. Comments are welcome.) This paper contributes to the discussion on China’s external grand strategy by focusing on one component: Sino-Indian relations through the lens of Indian and Chinese elites’ perspectives on the other country’s rise. The paper is divided into five sections. Section one succinctly reviews China’s evolving external strategy since the end of the Cold War. Section two introduces Chinese discourse on “comprehensive national power” as a convenient way to frame the debates on China’s security assessment and external strategy. Section three is devoted to one aspect of China’s external strategy -- Indo-Chinese relations – by analyzing the most important elements comprising this complex relationship. This section focuses on Indian elites’ perspectives on the rise of China. Section four concisely summarizes Chinese security analysts’ perspectives on a rising India in light of the changing bilateral relations. Section five provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the future prospects of
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific
    The Persistence of Nehruvianism in India's Strategic Culture Author Hall, Ian Published 2016 Book Title Strategic Asia 2016-17: Understanding Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Version Version of Record (VoR) Copyright Statement © 2016 The National Bureau of Asian Research. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the publisher’s website for further information. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/143455 Link to published version http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=912 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au strategic asia 2016–17 understanding strategic cultures in the Asia-Pacific Edited by Ashley J. Tellis, Alison Szalwinski, and Michael Wills India The Persistence of Nehruvianism in India’s Strategic Culture Ian Hall This is a preview of a chapter fromStrategic Asia 2016–17: Understanding Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific. To purchase the volume in which it appears, visit <http://www.nbr.org> or contact <[email protected]>. © 2016 The National Bureau of Asian Research executive summary This chapter analyzes India’s strategic culture in terms of the cultural resources on which its strategic elite draws, the main traditions of strategic thought, and their influence on India’s behavior. main argument India’s strategic culture is informed by ideas taken from Hindu texts, nineteenth- and twentieth-century religious revivalists, and modernist thinkers. These ideas shape three traditions of strategic thought: Nehruvianism, realpolitik, and Hindu nationalism. The Nehruvian tradition has been dominant since independence in 1947, underpinning a commitment to strategic restraint; the other two traditions are less influential on policy but important because of the potential alternatives they offer to Nehruvianism.
    [Show full text]
  • Command and Control of Nuclear Weapons in India Technology for Global Security Special Report
    COMMAND AND CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN INDIA TECHNOLOGY FOR GLOBAL SECURITY SPECIAL REPORT DR. M.V. RAMANA The Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security with the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. DR. LAUREN J. BORJA Simons Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the UBC Liu Institute for Global Issues, Vancouver August 1, 2019 COMMAND AND CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN INDIA M.V. RAMANA & LAUREN J. BORJA AUGUST 1, 2019 I. INTRODUCTION In this essay, M.V. Ramana and Lauren Borja state that Indian nuclear weapons reportedly are “controlled by the Nuclear Command Authority, a two layered structure, one of which is headed by the Prime Minister. Nuclear command and control in India,” they conclude, “has been shaped by an ongoing rivalry between civilian authorities and the military.” M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security with the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver. Lauren Borja is Simons Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the UBC Liu Institute for Global Issues, Vancouver. Acknowledgments: The workshop was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. This report is published simultaneously here by Technology for Global Security and here by Nautilus Institute and is published under a 4.0 International Creative Commons License the terms of which are found here. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Technology for Global Security.
    [Show full text]
  • South Asia's Lessons, Evolving Dynamics, and Trajectories
    South Asia’s Lessons, Evolving Dynamics, and Trajectories Edited by Sameer Lalwani and Hannah Haegeland South Asia’s Lessons, Evolving Dynamics, and Trajectories Edited by Sameer Lalwani and Hannah Haegeland JANUARY 2018  © Copyright 2018 by the Stimson Center. All rights reserved. Printed in Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-0-9997659-0-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017919496 Stimson Center 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S.A. Visit www.stimson.org for more information about Stimson’s research. Investigating Crises: South Asia’s Lessons, Evolving Dynamics, and Trajectories CONTENTS Preface . 7 Key Terms and Acronyms . 9 Introduction . 11 Sameer Lalwani Anatomy of a Crisis: Explaining Crisis Onset in India-Pakistan Relations . 23 Sameer Lalwani & Hannah Haegeland Organizing for Crisis Management: Evaluating India’s Experience in Three Case Studies . .57 Shyam Saran Conflict Resolution and Crisis Management: Challenges in Pakistan-India Relations . 75 Riaz Mohammad Khan Intelligence, Strategic Assessment, and Decision Process Deficits: The Absence of Indian Learning from Crisis to Crisis . 97 Saikat Datta Self-Referencing the News: Media, Policymaking, and Public Opinion in India-Pakistan Crises . 115 Ruhee Neog Crisis Management in Nuclear South Asia: A Pakistani Perspective . 143 Zafar Khan China and Crisis Management in South Asia . 165 Yun Sun & Hannah Haegeland Crisis Intensity and Nuclear Signaling in South Asia . 187 Michael Krepon & Liv Dowling New Horizons, New Risks: A Scenario-based Approach to Thinking about the Future of Crisis Stability in South Asia . 221 Iskander Rehman New Challenges for Crisis Management . 251 Michael Krepon Contributors . 265 Contents 6 PREFACE With gratitude and pride I present Stimson’s latest South Asia Program book, Investigating Crises: South Asia’s Lessons, Evolving Dynamics, and Trajectories.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Union's Partnership with India
    MastnyThe Soviet Union’s Partnership with India The Soviet Union’s Partnership with India ✣ Vojtech Mastny The partnership between India and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has been widely regarded as a success story. Although the two coun- tries did not pretend to share the same values, they had no serious conºict of interests and created a model of mutually beneªcial realpolitik. The relation- ship still evokes nostalgia in India, projecting the image of the Soviet Union as a respectful and reliable friend, and has been cited to Americans as an example to emulate. How accurate are these images? How did the two partners really see each other? What did they try to get in building their relationship, and how important to them was what they got? What beneªts did they derive? How can we tell?1 In both countries, most writings on the subject were traditionally of the celebratory kind. More balanced accounts were written by foreign authors, but their value was limited by the inºuence of the ongoing Cold War and by a dearth of reliable sources. Despite India’s American-style “Right to Informa- tion Act,” access to Indian archives has been routinely obstructed by the gov- ernment, which, with its penchant for secrecy, has kept the inside records of its decision-making out of public sight. Although much can be gleaned from private papers of important ofªcials, they are available only through the early 1970s. For later years, retrospective testimonies of fallible eyewitnesses and newspaper reports are the only Indian primary sources we have.2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • CPC Outreach Journal #999
    Issue No. 999, 20 April 2012 Articles & Other Documents: Featured Article: Chief of US Missile Defense Sees Little Progress in North Korean Spaceflight Program 1. Salehi Optimistic about Iran-5+1 Talks in Baghdad 2. P5+1 Has Good Opportunity in Talks with Iran: Larijani 3. Iran Denounces U.S. Missile Shield Plan in Persian Gulf 4. Test Chamber May Hold Iran’s Nuclear Secret 5. Angry North Korea Threatens Retaliation, Nuclear Test Expected 6. More Missile Launches Expected Rather than Nuke Test: Expert 7. Korea Deploys New Missile Capable of Hitting Anywhere in NK 8. Experts: NKorea Missile Carrier Likely From China 9. NK Says It Will Continue to Launch Satellites under Space Program 10. China Assisting North Korea Missile Program: US DOD's Panetta 11. India Storms into Elite Club with Agni-V Missile 12. Next Step Is to Have Agni-V on Submarine: Ex-Navy Chief 13. India No Match to Us, China Daily Lashes Out after Agni-V Missile Success 14. Agni-V Has Many More Milestones to Reach 15. Canister Storage Gives N-Capable Agni-V Missile Flexibility 16. Russia to Put Two Nuclear Submarines in Service this Summer 17. Russian Military Orders Missile Early Warning Satellites 18. Russia Not to Deploy Bulava Missiles Before July 19. Chief of US Missile Defense Sees Little Progress in North Korean Spaceflight Program 20. U.S. Chemical Weapons Disposal Slippage "No Surprise," Expert Says 21. Congressman Alleges China Helping North Korea with ICBMs 22. Here's Why There Were Iranian Engineers at North Korea's Rocket Launch 23.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence Stability and Escalation Control in South Asia, Edited by Michael Krepon and Julia Thompson
    DETERRENCE STABILITY AND ESCALATION CONTROL IN SOUTH ASIA Edited by Michael Krepon and Julia Thompson © 2013 The Stimson Center All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from the Stimson Center. ISBN: 978-1-939240-06-4 Stimson 1111 19th Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202.223.5956 | Fax: 202.238.9604 www.stimson.org Contents Preface 5 Key Terms and Acronyms 7 Introduction 9 Michael Krepon and Julia Thompson, Stimson Center The Non-unitary Model and Deterrence Stability in South Asia 21 George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Pakistan’s Nuclear Strategy and Deterrence Stability 41 Michael Krepon, Stimson Center The US Experience With Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Lessons for South Asia 65 David O. Smith, independent consultant Doctrine, Capabilities, and (In)Stability in South Asia 93 Christopher Clary and Vipin Narang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Prospects for Limited War and Nuclear Use in South Asia 107 Neil Joeck, University of California, Berkeley Missile Proliferation and Deterrence Stability in South Asia 123 Dinshaw Mistry, University of Cincinnati, Ohio Deterrence Stability and the Conventional Balance of Forces in South Asia 135 Christopher Clary, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Strategic Restraint Regime 2.0 161 Feroz Hassan Khan, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey The Yin and Yang of Strategic Transparency: Tools to Improve Nuclear Stability and Deterrence in South Asia 175 Zachary S. Davis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Beyond Incrementalism: Rethinking Approaches to CBMs and Stability in South Asia 187 Toby Dalton, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Contributors 209 Preface | 5 Preface I am pleased to present the latest publication of the Stimson Center’s South Asia pro- gram: Deterrence Stability and Escalation Control in South Asia, edited by Michael Krepon and Julia Thompson.
    [Show full text]