(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



One Small Step for Nuclear Arms Control [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2023-09-09

The geopolitical blocks that divide our world make it tough for effective international law to provide a framework for individual nation-state’s behavior on the world stage.

A case in point is the nuclear tensions between China, India, and Pakistan. The United States is a key factor in the tensions because of our presence in the region. Twenty-five years ago—in 1998—India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons, initiating a trilateral nuclear rivalry in Southern Asia. The situation has only become more lethal in time, as the number of nuclear warheads in the India-Pakistan conflict have grown on both sides with China also increasing its arsenal.

The uneasy strategic stability in the region is also marked by technological advances in missile technology, counterforce capabilities, and an expanding spectrum of nuclear delivery vehicles available to every side. India and China’s repeated border clashes along the Himalayas and broader completion in the Indo-Pacific added a layer of complexity to the problem. This rivalry has led to developments in military technology and organization—especially India’s new Integrated Rocket Force —that increased the risk of escalation in the region. Added with Pakistan’s devolving domestic political environment characterized by renewed civilian-military clashes and India’s statements about abandoning its no-first-use policy, there are several different pathways to nuclear instability in the region that should generate broad concern in the international community.

Writer Debek Das spoke of the strategic positions of India and Pakistan in his story “The State of Nuclear Instability in South Asia: India, Pakistan, and China,” “both India and Pakistan have consistently modernized their nuclear forces over the past two decades. Each is aiming to ensure that they can match each other at lower levels of escalation. These technological advancements have led to increased vulnerability for both sides at different levels of the escalation ladder. This ranges from the ability to use low-yield nuclear weapons in specific battlefields as well as being able to conduct large strategic countervalue strikes on each other’s cities.”

To be realistic, let’s look at the nuclear strategies of all the countries of India and Pakistan. Pakistan followed a strategy of full spectrum deterrence, allowing nuclear weapons in response to low-scale conventional war. Islamabad has introduced tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons with short ranges—like the Hatf IX Nasr missile, which has a 60-kilometer range and several other weapons. India, meanwhile, has been reported to be building flexible preemptive counterforce nuclear systems. These include more precise nuclear delivery systems with short ranges, multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle systems on ballistic missiles, and a growing arsenal of cruise missiles.

China’s role in the South Sea has increased in recent years, especially the area that borders India. However, China’s nuclear buildup is directed primarily toward the United States, and few, if any, of China’s 410 warheads are aimed toward India. China has outmatched India on the nuclear front since 1964.

What we have is a nuclear nightmare in Asia. Das rejected the call by writers like Ashley Tellis to help India in its balancing act by arming it with thermonuclear weapons and naval reactor designs. The idea behind the suggestion is that India’s thermonuclear test in 1998 failed and that it might not have a credible thermonuclear weapon. US assistance on this front would help India match China in nuclear competition, allowing it to better contribute to the goals of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue nations—Japan, Australia, India, and the United States. The idea ignores Pakistan as it attempts to match India in nuclear weapons. It would also counter the US’ non-proliferation goals, as stated by Das. There are already enough drivers of instability without bringing more nuclear weapons into the mix.

Das makes a wonderful suggestion on the near future of Asian policy: “the United States needs to be cognizant of this as it crafts an Indo-Pacific policy aimed at countering China. Indeed, it should aim to deemphasize the nuclear dimension of this competition and avoid entangling India in a four-way nuclear competition among the United States, China, India, and Pakistan.” It’s such a wonderful way to end a story, and it should be a jump start in contemporary foreign policy. Could this be point one in a way to deescalate relations with China? We would reject the idea that India should build up its nuclear arsenal to a greater extent that it already has. Relations between China and the US are not good, and China’s belligerent behavior is a danger to world peace, especially the current language toward Taiwan, but would an agreement to deemphasize nuclear arms lead to something greater? I can only hope so.

Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/9/2192413/-One-Small-Step-for-Nuclear-Arms-Control

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.