When the most powerful
nation on earth feels that the threats it faces are increasing, it touches off
dangerous eddies that can destablise global security. The United States
has signalled that this is, indeed, the case. The December 2017 National
Security Strategy (NSS) declared that China and Russia were “attempting to
erode American security and prosperity”.
In January
2018, the US adopted a new National Defence Strategy (NDS) whose unclassified
summary says the principal problem confronting the US is the erosion of
American military advantage over China and Russia in three key theatres — Indo-Pacific,
Europe and West Asia.
So it’s not
surprising that the Nuclear Posture Review issued shortly thereafter called for
the US to expand its reliance on nuclear forces to protect the country and
reassure allies. In addition to modernising ageing forces, it said there was
a need for two new missiles, a low-yield sea-launched ballistic
missile (SLBM) and a new sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM).
The US says it is
reacting to developments in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China.
The North Korean
thermonuclear test and the sophistication of its long-range missiles was no
doubt a major factor. But so were Russian developments in testing and deploying
a new line of strategic nuclear-capable missiles and hypersonic vehicles
capable of outmanoeuvring US defences. The US cited the Russian deployment of a
new ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), the 9M729, for its pullout of the
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. By their test of hypersonic
glide vehicles, manoeuvering and multiple warhead systems, the Chinese, too,
signalled that their aim was to defeat potential US ABM systems.
Clearly, some of
this has been triggered by the US decision to scrap, rather than renegotiate
important arms control treaties like the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile(ABM)
Treaty. American advances in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as
well as precision strikes, have had their own chilling effect on the Russians
and the Chinese.
Contemporary political
developments and advances in technology are challenging the uncomfortable but
useful notion of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that has ensured nuclear
peace so far. Countries like India, a modest nuclear weapons power, which faces
two nuclear adversaries, will now have to take them into account.
First, India’s no
first use (NFU) pledge has been challenged by the low-yield theatre weapons
deployed by Pakistan which believes theatre weapons are crucial for their
defence against India’s conventional superiority.
But even a
low-yield weapon is thousands of time more destructive than a conventional one.
As of now India has promised “massive retaliation” against any nuclear use. The
way it sees it is similar to the position of US defence secretary James
Mattis who said in February “I don’t think there’s any such thing as a tactical
nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used anytime is a strategic game-changer.”
Second, India has
to worry about a modernised Chinese arsenal that can defeat American counter-measures.
In view of India’s somewhat primitive arsenal, the Chinese may be encouraged to
think they can get away with a disarming first strike, eroding the stability
provided by the idea of MAD.
Nuclear forces
being upgraded and modernised globally are pressuring India once again, just as
once the perpetual extension of the NPT and the CTBT pushed New Delhi across
the nuclear threshold.
This article
originally appeared in First Post. By Observer
Research Foundation
By Manoj Joshi
No comments:
Post a Comment