Indian hybrid warfare (Revelation 8 )

Indian hybrid warfare: The threat is real

The false allegations that Pakistan is a terrorist sponsor state has been one of the longstanding notions developed by India and transmitted via targeted misinformation

Syed Zain Jaffery8:27 PM | June 30, 2020

Hybrid warfare in conflict studies is a developing but undefined concept, which utilizes unconventional approaches as part of multi-sphere warfighting tactics. These approaches are designed to destabilize and disable the activities of an adversary without kinetic means. Hybrid warfare menuevers through social or psycological components which could be employed under conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyber warfare with other operating approaches such as fake news, diplomacy, and electoral interference.

The term “political warfare” is also commonly referred to hybrid warfare as the power used to attain national objectives in the absence of armed conflict. Political warfare is also the engagement of all the means at a nation’s command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. As per existing literature, hybrid warfare can be elaborated as an amalgamation of traditional military approach, unconventional means, economic exploitation and information war. The most prominent hybrid war was waged by the United States against Russia and China by adopting strategies i.e. “containment” or “constructive engagement.” The contemporary approach of Russia towards Ukraine is also an illustration of this form of warfare.

In hybrid warfare, the target state’s media is often used as the most effective method to cause desperation, confusion and resentment among the general public. The aggressor can manipulate existing internal fault lines such as ethnic/religious extremism, crumbling economy and insurgencies. The perpetrator could fuel political turmoil to avoid national policies being formulated and implemented by the target state. To isolate the rival state globally, robust diplomatic lobbying can be employed to produce desirable results and the belligerent can exploit weak diplomatic channels of target state to damage/deprecate its positive initiatives/efforts. Subversive actions can also be utilized through proxy forces and non-state entities inside the target state to politically undermine law and order while turning the target into an unstable society. Belligerent could exploit its leverage on foreign financial institutions to establish circumstances that further economically degrade the rival by paving the way for such financial institutions to seize over the target state’s national assets.

In the context of South Asian regional stability, the current security situation indicates the use of hybrid warfare against Pakistan. Throughout the last two decades, especially since it became a nuclear power, Pakistan is in the midst of hybrid warfare. When Pakistan demonstrated its nuclear capability in 1998, along with powerful conventional military preparedness, New Delhi found it difficult to coerce Islamabad through direct conflict. So India shifted its policy towards hybrid tactics against Pakistan. India is exploiting socio-ethnic and religious fault lines in Pakistan while propagating against every effort leading towards national cohesion. In this regards, the doctrine of Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval reflects the hybrid warfare ambitions of India against Pakistan. India has a history of instigating proxies against Pakistan, but the indirect vilest approach was adopted by Ajit Doval in the public domain when he was nominated as National Security Advisor.

A prominent YouTube video of Mr. Ajit is a perfect manifestation of India’s intentions to wage hybrid war against Pakistan. He elaborated his doctrine as an engagement with the enemy at three levels, defensive, defensive-offensive and offensive. While classifying Pakistan as an Indian enemy, Mr. Ajit advocated an extensive range of clandestine actions against Pakistan i.e. isolating Pakistan internationally OR aiding Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to create internal security of Pakistan chaotic. He is of the view that India should use the Taliban as a prevalent vulnerability against Pakistan. The latest exposure of the spy network following the arrest of RAW agent Kulbhushan Yadav by Pakistani security agencies reveals that rules of engagement have been changed. Whereas, the primary purpose of Pakistan-specific land warfare doctrine – declassified by the Indian Army in 2018 – was to initiate the hybrid nature of wars through modernization and integration of the armed forces. The persistence of the terrorist attacks in Balochistan as well as the emerging military strategies of India are proofs that Doval doctrine is functioning at full throttle.

The mainstream media has less often publicized that India is persistently involved in a proxy war against Pakistan, which is an efficient tactic of indirect engagement. New Delhi has been wagging a proxy war against Islamabad through Kabul especially at a time when NATO forces are almost ready to depart. Pakistan on many occasions has provided sufficient evidence to Indian authorities, about Indian covert support in several terrorist acts. Former United States Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has also indicated that India is using Afghan soil to finance the problems for Pakistan. These Indian infiltrations in Pakistan are a prominent feature of hybrid warfare as Webster G. Tarpley, a prominent US based analyst revealed that “the chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines.”

The false allegations that Pakistan is a terrorist sponsor state has been one of the longstanding notions developed by India and transmitted via targeted misinformation. India is persistently creating opportunities for false flag operations such as the Indian parliament bombing, Mumbai crisis of 2008, Pathankot attack in 2016 and Pulwama incident of 2019. As a result of India’s falsified propaganda campaigns, misinformation and diplomatic efforts, Pakistan was placed on the FATF grey list. Recently, India has circulated another fake news about the terrorist attack in Sri Lanka, alleging that Pakistani-based terrorists had carried it out. This claim was subsequently refused by global terror expert of Sri Lankan origin and confirmed that terrorists had infiltrated and coordinated through Indian soil.

While the government of Pakistan is well aware of the threat of Indian Hybrid warfare and taking appropriate safeguard, it is the right time for Pakistan’s policymakers to adopt a more practical and proactive approach for the formulation of a cohesive strategy to counter Indian hybrid tactics. The government of Pakistan should conduct a self-evaluation of critical functions and weaknesses across all segments, especially related to international narrative building, and maintain it regularly. There is a need to institute and entrench a procedure to lead and coordinate a national approach of self-assessment and threat analysis. Military leadership has already acknowledged that Pakistan confronts a hybrid war as the adversary tries to manipulate many of its financial, economic and political fault lines. In the changing pattern of Hybrid warfare, Pakistan must prepare itself at all levels of policy, doctrine, strategy and operations.

The True Nuclear Strength of India (Revelation 8 )

India is allegedly misreporting nuclear weapon stockpile – Global Village Space

June 29, 2020

Concerns have been raised over the actual and reported strength of the nuclear stockpile in India. To complete nuclear triad, India is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons program under many covert projects removed from international oversight.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has recently launched its annual yearbook 2020 and assessed the current state of armament, disarmament and international security. Concerns have been raised, however, over the actual and reported strength of the nuclear stockpile in India.

While maintaining its years-long tradition of adding 10 more nuclear weapons in Pakistan’s stockpile, SIPRI estimated that India possesses the smallest numbers of nuclear warheads in the South Asian strategic context. The yearbook appeared to be misleading and politically motivated because it did not incorporate other independent sources with higher estimates of Indian nuclear stockpile.

SIPRI did not even bother to take notes from a recent report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The report has deliberated the annual nuclear spending of the nine nuclear-armed states. The most interesting case discussed was that Pakistan’s expenditure on its nuclear forces is about $1 billion, as compared to India which spends twice the amount, i.e. $2.3 billion to maintain almost the same number of nuclear weapons.

Reports show India’s nuclear programme is picking up pace

Today, India is operating the world’s fastest expanding nuclear weapons programme outside safeguards among any other non-NPT nuclear states. India is pursuing a nuclear triad that encompasses nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), dual-use cruise/ballistic missiles and an enormous naval modernization intended to nuclearize the Indian ocean region.

Various Indian experts and politicians claim India needs more than 300-400 nuclear weapons for its strategic forces. Dr. Anil Kakodkar, the former Chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, has said in this regards that, “both, from the point of view of maintaining long-term energy security and for maintaining the ‘minimum credible deterrent,’ the fast breeder programme just cannot be put on the civilian list. This would amount to getting shackled and India certainly cannot compromise one [security] for the other.”

#India is becoming the third nuclear power in the world, #SIPRI said #asia #europe #defense #news #military https://t.co/2gY4m3aB8T

— Bulgarian Military (@BGMilitary) June 28, 2020

So, India has intentionally reserved its fast breeder reactors and most of its so-called civil nuclear programme out of the safeguards and surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In order to acquire the full nuclear triad capability, India will strive to produce many more nuclear warheads without IAEA monitoring.

IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review by Robert Kelley has examined that how several avenues enabled India to achieve the quantity and purity of uranium that are needed in a closed nuclear fuel cycle and New Delhi appears to be interested in atomic vapour laser isotope separation (AVLIS).

It further added that reactor-grade plutonium from the unsafe-guarded Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) provides a further strategic military stockpile to India. The IHS Jane also mentioned that India imports Jordanian phosphate in large quantities for fertiliser production.

A large stream of phosphoric acid will be processed at the Rare Material Recovery (RMR) Plant at the Pradeep Phosphates Ltd plant near Odisha in the east of the country. The extraction of uranium from imported phosphate fertilisers gives India a source of uranium that is not subject to international monitoring and uranium from phosphate can be used for military activities.

An in depth analysis has shown that India has enough resources and fissile materials to develop between 356 and 492 nuclear warheads. The study titled ‘Indian Unsafeguarded Nuclear Program’ which was published by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) revealed a recent and detailed evaluation of the capability of India’s nuclear weapons programme.

Whereas, a Belfer Center’s study has indicated that India is already installing more than five fast breeder reactors, which will proliferate its production capacities of weapons-grade plutonium 20-fold to 700 kg annually. The analysis of this production capacity demonstrates that New Delhi has the capacity to produce roughly 80 to 90 plutonium-based and 7 to 8 uranium-based nuclear weapons every year.

According to the study, if all of the weapons and the reactor-grade Plutonium and the Highly Enriched Uranium stocks are taken into account, India could produce between 2,261 and 2,686 weapons.

Matthew Clements, editor of IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, in an interview, uncovered the expansion of an Indian clandestine uranium enrichment plant that could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons. The facility, located near Mysore in southern India, would yield nearly twice as much weapons-grade uranium as New Delhi would need in its fastest-growing nuclear weapons programme.

Whereas, unabated growth in its centrifuge enrichment programme will allow it to intensify the production of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to 160kg annually. Matthew Clements said that “taking into account all the enriched uranium likely to be needed by the Indian nuclear submarine fleet, there is likely to be a significant excess.”

India attempts to complete the nuclear triad

To complete nuclear triad, India is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons program under many covert projects. Such as, it is operating a plutonium production reactor, Dhruva, and a uranium enrichment facility, which are not subject to IAEA safeguards.

India is building South Asia largest military complex of nuclear centrifuges, atomic-research laboratories. This facility will give India the ability to make many large-yield nuclear arms & hydrogen bombs.

In the back drop of Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement, undisclosed plutonium reserves were not inspected and were left with Indian weapons development facilities. Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy investigation reports also specified that India is secretly building a nuclear enrichment complex in Challakere to escalate arms race. It will covertly triple the number of nuclear warheads in the coming years from what India possess today.

India is hiding its stockpile using technical loopholes

India has introduced an ambiguous nuclear separation plan with the IAEA in which it encompassed only those facilities on the civilian list and offered them for safeguards that are not involved in activities of strategic implication. The civilian Plutonium reserves that are outside the safeguards of the IAEA and designated for strategic purposes are the main cause of concern.

In a three-stage plan, India is continuing to expand its unsafeguarded nuclear power program. The installation of several nuclear reactors has also been announced by New Delhi. This capability will generate excessive fissile material, other than the fuel necessary for breeder and naval reactors.

Over the next few years, India will be capable to replace China, France and the United Kingdom in terms of its abilities to produce nuclear weapons to become the third behind the U.S. and Russia.

India has intensified development and strategic procurement to stockpile weapons-grade material for future usage in military modernization programmes. The increasing stocks of weapons-grade fissile material by New Delhi would have unbearable effects from the South Asian viewpoint of strategic stability.

A number of nuclear suppliers, on the assumption of non-factual estimates of Indian stockpile, concluded nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Although the material from these countries appears to be being reused in arms for the policy of Indian military expansion with respect to aggressive nuclear weapon modernization.

The mere simple facts that the Indian Nuclear programme started well before Pakistan’s, has a bigger capacity than Pakistan with bulk of it outside IAEA safeguards, has 14 nuclear deals under exceptional trade waiver in 2008 by NSG and is actively pursuing a triad of nuclear and space forces being sponsored by leading Western states, are sufficient to prove that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is no match to India’s dangerous and expansionist nuclear quest.

It then becomes hard to understand as to why respectable institutions like the SIPRI try to downplay the emerging dangers of massive vertical proliferation carried out by India in the last two decades?

The author is a student of Current Affairs and Political Science with a Masters degree from NUST, Islamabad. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.

The Pakistani Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistan’s nuclear journey – PART-I

Twenty-two years ago, Muhammad Arshad chanted Allahu Akbar and pushed the button. It took a nerve-racking 30 seconds before the mountain turned white. Pakistan’s nuclear tests were successful. This was the culmination of a long arduous Pakistani quest for a nuclear weapon.

Scott Sagan in his magnum opus ‘Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb’ has identified different factors that lead a state to build nuclear weapons: national security concern is one of these reasons: Pakistan is a classic case for this model. Pakistan’s nuclear history can be divided into two phases: 1947-1972 when Pakistan had a peaceful nuclear programme, whereas in the post 1972 due to national security concerns in the wake of the east Pakistan debacle, Pakistan started exploring options for building a bomb that got intensified after India’s nuclear test in 1974.

In the first phase, four personalities played the most significant role and established the programme on firm footing: Dr Rafi Mohammad Chaudhry of Government College Lahore, (now Government College University – GCU), Pakistan’s only Nobel laureate Professor Abdus Salam and Dr Nazir Ahmed who was the first chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). These three laid a solid foundation by training the manpower, and setting institutional priorities. Pakistan also benefited from the American Atom for Peace program. During this phase, the programme was focused on peaceful use of atomic energy.

The fourth was Dr Ishrat Hussain Usmani who was appointed Chairman of PAEC by President Ayub Khan on the recommendation of Dr Abdus Salam. According to Feroz Hasan Khan: “PAEC chairman Usmani laid down three objectives: to construct nuclear power plants and so alleviate the shortage of conventional energy sources; to apply nuclear knowledge (radioisotopes) to agriculture, medicine, and industry; and to conduct research and development on problems of national importance.” (Eating Grass, Stanford University Press, p50) Dr Usamani is credited to have laid down the foundation of the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH), a world renowned education and training centre.

During this phase, the focus was on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and even if there was a voice in favour of building one, it lacked any major support and was mostly muffled. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Munir Ahmed Khan were among the bigger supporters of going for this option.

The second phase of Pakistan’s nuclear programme began with Bhutto taking over the helm of affairs in Islamabad. In 1972, Bhutto held a meeting with key officials in Multan and ordered them to build a nuclear bomb. He appointed his friend and fellow member of the so-called bomb lobby, Munir Ahmed Khan the new chairman of PAEC. This meeting set the future direction of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. After the Indian nuclear explosion in 1974, Pakistan’s own quest for nuclear weapons began in earnest. Despite this, Pakistan offered several arms control measures to India but India rejected all of them on the pretext that they have to take their security concerns about China into account as well.

PAEC under Munir Ahmed Khan’s leadership worked hard towards achieving their goal. This effort was further intensified when Dr. A. Q. Khan joined the effort. Despite the political change in the country, the nuclear quest continued and General Zia continued it despite tremendous pressure from the international community especially when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan as a frontline state. According to media reports, in 1987, he signalled that Pakistan had achieved the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Despite achieving the capability, Pakistan neither expressed nor demonstrated its capability as Pakistan built the bomb only to ensure its national security. Had the situation remained ambiguous and India not conducted another series of tests, the likelihood of Pakistan conducting overt tests was extremely remote.

To fulfil its electoral promise, the BJP government tested its nuclear devices Shakti I, II and III on May 11, 1998 followed by two more on May 13. This rang alarm bells in Islamabad. Then Prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif cut short his state visit to Uzbekistan and rushed back to Islamabad. Immediately after his return, he summoned a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC). In this meeting, Dr Samar Mubarakmand assured the Prime Minister that PAEC needs only ten days to prepare and conduct the tests. Once again, the Indians caught the global power centres napping as neither of them were able to stop the Indian tests. Once again, the international community, instead of addressing the root cause, started pressuring Pakistan not to conduct its tests. Despite Islamabad’s declaring the Indian tests a “death blow to the global efforts at nuclear non-proliferation” the Americans were more focused on convincing Islamabad to abstain from responding. The Talbot mission delivered a sermon to the Pakistani leadership about what is best for Pakistan and the Pakistani people, but were not willing to pay any heed to Pakistan’s security concerns.

After intense and extensive debate, and also due to the inability of the international power centres especially USA to objectively engage and address Pakistan’s concerns and the statements emanating from India, the Defence Committee of the Cabinet decided to conduct the nuclear test. Once given the go ahead, the PAEC team, under the leadership of Dr Samar Mubarakmand, prepared the testing site and conducted the test. In total six successful tests were conducted by Pakistan on 28 and 30 May 1998.

India’s Growing Nuclear Arsenal (Revelation 8 )

India is Operating World’s Fastest Expanding Nuclear Weapons Programme

By Zain MoeedJune 28, 2020

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has recently launched its annual year book 2020 and assessed the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security. While maintaining its years-long tradition of adding 10 more nuclear weapons in Pakistan’s stockpile, SIPRI estimated that India possesses the smallest numbers of nuclear warheads in the South Asian strategic context. The year book is appeared to be misleading and politically motivated because it did not incorporate other independent sources with higher estimates of Indian nuclear stockpile. SIPRI did not even bother to take notes from a recent report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The report has deliberated the annual nuclear spending of the nine nuclear-armed states. The most interesting case discussed was that Pakistan’s expenditure on its nuclear forces is about $1 billion, as compared to India which spends twice the amount, i.e. $2.3 billion to maintain almost the same number of nuclear weapons.

Today, India is operating world’s fastest expanding nuclear weapons programme outside safeguards among any other non-NPT nuclear states. India is pursuing a nuclear triad which encompasses nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), dual-use cruise/ballistic missiles and an enormous naval modernization intended to nuclearize the Indian ocean region. Various Indian experts and politicians claim India needs more than 300-400 nuclear weapons for its strategic forces.Dr. Anil Kakodkar, the former Chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, has said in this regards that, “both, from the point of view of maintaining long-term energy security and for maintaining the ‘minimum credible deterrent,’ the fast breeder programme just cannot be put on the civilian list. This would amount to getting shackled and India certainly cannot compromise one [security] for the other.”So, India has intentionally reserved its fast breeder reactors and most of its so-called civil nuclear programme out of the safeguards and surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).In order to acquire the full nuclear triad capability, India will strive to produce many more nuclear warheads without IAEA monitoring.

IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review by Robert Kelley has examined that how several avenues enabled India to achieve the quantity and purity of uranium that are needed in a closed nuclear fuel cycle and New Delhi appears to be interested in atomic vapour laser isotope separation (AVLIS). It further added that reactor-grade plutonium from the unsafe-guarded Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) provides a further strategic military stockpile to India. The IHS Jane also mentioned that India imports Jordanian phosphate in large quantities for fertiliser production. A large stream of phosphoric acid will be processed at the Rare Material Recovery (RMR) Plant at the Pradeep Phosphates Ltd plant near Odisha in the east of the country. Extraction of uranium from imported phosphate fertilisers gives India a source of uranium that is not subject to international monitoring and uranium from phosphate can be used for military activities.

An in depth analysis has shown that India has enough resources and fissile materials to develop between 356 and 492 nuclear warheads. The study titled ‘Indian Unsafeguarded Nuclear Program’ which was published by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) revealed a recent and detailed evaluation of the capability of India’s nuclear weapons programme. Whereas, a Belfer Center’s study has indicated that India is already installing more than five fast breeder reactors, which will proliferate its production capacities of weapons-grade plutonium 20-fold to 700 kg annually. The analysis of this production capacity demonstrates that New Delhi has the capacity to produce roughly 80 to 90 plutonium-based and 7 to 8 uranium-based nuclear weapons every year. According to the study, if all of the weapons and the reactor-grade Plutonium and the Highly Enriched Uranium stocks are taken into account, India could produce between 2,261 and 2,686 weapons.

Matthew Clements, editor of IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, in an interview, uncovered the expansion of an Indian clandestine uranium enrichment plant that could potentially support the development of thermonuclear weapons. The facility, located near Mysore in southern India, would yield nearly twice as much weapons-grade uranium as New Delhi would need in its fastest-growing nuclear weapons programme. Whereas, unabated growth in its centrifuge enrichment programme will allow it to intensify the production of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to 160kg annually. Matthew Clements said that “taking into account all the enriched uranium likely to be needed by the Indian nuclear submarine fleet, there is likely to be a significant excess.”

To complete nuclear triad, India is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons program under many covert projects. Such as, it is operating a plutonium production reactor, Dhruva, and a uranium enrichment facility, which are not subject to IAEA safeguards. India is building South Asia largest military complex of nuclear centrifuges, atomic-research laboratories. This facility will give India the ability to make many large-yield nuclear arms & hydrogen bombs. In the back drop of Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement, undisclosed plutonium reserves were not inspected and were left with Indian weapons development facilities. Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy investigation reports also specified that India is secretly building a nuclear enrichment complex in Challakere to escalate arms race. It will covertly triple the number of nuclear warheads in the coming years from what India possess today.

India has introduced an ambiguous nuclear separation plan with the IAEA in which it encompassed only those facilities on the civilian list and offered them for safeguards that are not involved in activities of strategic implication. The civilian Plutonium reserves that are outside the safeguards of the IAEA and designated for strategic purposes are the main cause of concern. In a three-stage plan, India is continuing to expand its unsafeguarded nuclear power program. The installation of several nuclear reactors has also been announced by New Delhi. This capability will generate excessive fissile material, other than the fuel necessary for breeder and naval reactors. Over the next few years, India will be capable to replace China, France and the United Kingdom in terms of its abilities to produce nuclear weapons to become the third behind the U.S. and Russia.

India has intensified development and strategic procurement to stockpile weapons-grade material for future usage in military modernization programmes. The increasing stocks of weapons-grade fissile material by New Delhi would have unbearable effects from the South Asian viewpoint of strategic stability.A number of nuclear suppliers, on the assumption of non-factual estimates of Indian stockpile, concluded nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Although the material from these countries appears to be being reused in arms for the policy of Indian military expansion with respect to aggressive nuclear weapon modernization.

The mere simple facts that the Indian Nuclear programme started well before Pakistan’s, has a bigger capacity than Pakistan with bulk of it outside IAEA safeguards, has 14 nuclear deals under exceptional trade waiver in 2008 by NSG and is actively pursuing a triad of nuclear and space forces being sponsored by leading Western states, are sufficient to prove that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is no match to India’s dangerous and expansionist nuclear quest. It then becomes hard to understand as to why respectable institutions like the SIPRI try to downplay the emerging dangers of massive vertical proliferation carried out by India in the last two decades?

Estimates of the First Nuclear War Are Misleading (Revelation 8 )

International estimates of Pakistani nukes misleading

Experts say reports about India do not account for its shift in stance

ISLAMABAD: International estimates about the country’s nuclear arsenal are misleading and biased while downplaying the capabilities of Pakistan’s hostile neighbour, India..

“Western think tanks have had a historical tendency to misreport Pakistan’s nuclear programme as the fastest growing one, and downplay the scope of India’s nuclear capabilities,” said Ambassador Ali Naqvi, the executive director of the Centre for International Strategic Studies (CISS) during a webinar on Friday. Hosted by his institute, the webinar focused on the myths about the Pakistani nuclear programme.

Noting that certain ideas are often propagated about the Pakistani programme by the international media and certain academics, Naqvi pointed to a report recently published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which suggested that the “size and diversity” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons was greater than that of India and that there was no openness about the “status or size” of the arsenals.

The report, he said, had claimed that Pakistan had 160 warheads, which were 10 more than those in the Indian arsenal

CISS Senior Fellow Dr Naeem Salik said that a difference of ten warheads in the arsenals of two nuclear armed neighbours has been reported in most estimates for over a decade, which in itself is an admission that no country’s nuclear programme was growing faster than the other.

Dr Salik suggested most of the estimates were mere guesses in the absence of accurate data on key factors of warhead production, including nature of weapon design, and capacity of plutonium production and others.

South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) DG Dr Maria Sultan pointed to the huge transition in India’s force posture from the ‘No-First Use’ doctrine to one of ‘First Use’.

Moreover, data on the estimated number of warheads for India did not match with New Delhi’s restructuring of its strategic forces, military posture, and the actual amount of fissile material stockpiles.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 27th, 2020.

Pakistan Tries to Illegally Acquire Nukes

The report by the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg states that Germany is an important area of operation for Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Syria for securing relevant know-how through illegal procurement from the country

The German state government has lambasted Pakistan for its proliferation record of nuclear weapons. Expressing its concern over the same, a report by the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg highlights that Pakistan continues to engage in the production and proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

It further enunciates that the country is also trying to secure relevant know-how through illegal procurement from Germany.

The report, which chronicles annual key developments on proliferation was released on June 16, 2020.

Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Syria are still pursuing such efforts. They aim to complete existing arsenals, perfect the range, deployability and effectiveness of their weapons and develop new weapons systems. They are trying to obtain the necessary products and relevant no-how, inter alia, through illegal procurement efforts in Germany,” according to the annual report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution for Baden-Wuttemberg.

Pakistan has been subject to a lot of scrutiny for its nuclear proliferation record. In 2004, the country’s nuclear architect AQ Khan admitted to being a party in global proliferation, including providing designs to countries like North Korea.

The report added that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is directed against its sworn enemy India.

It underlined that to bypass existing export curbs and embargoes, the countries referred to in the report, have created new procurement ways and means.

Under these approaches, they can acquire goods in Germany and Europe with the help of “cover companies and, in particular, transport dual-use goods to risk states. Typical bypass countries include the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China.”

The report further explains how “production and proliferation” of weapons of mass destruction pose a “serious threat to peace and international security” and the establishments need to set goals for preventing risk states from building and developing weapons of mass destruction and corresponding carrier systems.

“In order to minimize risks, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution sensitises those responsible there to make them aware of the danger and possible consequences of illegal knowledge transfer,” the document underscores.

Potential proliferation sources of know-how, according to the report, comprise universities, non-university research institutions, and research and training departments of companies.

Predicted nuclear winter at the first nuclear war (Revelation 8 )


‘Predicted nuclear winter’ could escalate from India, China clashes 

RMIT’s Joe Siracusa says the dispute between China and India is important as they all “have nuclear weapons,” and the Communist Party should be wary as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “is not afraid of a war”. India claimed on Tuesday that 20 soldiers were killed by Chinese forces in border clashes which happened after several weeks of stand offs in the western Himalayas. “This clash is in the exact place where China and India fought a war in WWII,” Mr Siracusa told Sky News. He said he believed India will “increasingly turn to Japan, the United States and even to Australia” as clashes continue with China. “I think because of the pressure that China is putting on India, and keep in mind here, the Indians can give the Chinese a lesson here. “In the meantime, I think the Chinese will put a lot of pressure on Pakistan to put a lot of pressure on India”. “In 1962, all these people were going at each other, but they didn’t have nuclear weapons. “Today, all the players in south Asia have nuclear weapons. “And in exchange of 10 or 15 missiles there, warheads, would induce the nuclear winter there that Carl Sagan predicted in the 1980s. “Will they use nuclear weapons for a border dispute … not because they want to, but because it might escalate or accidentally move into that area.” Image: AP

India Accelerates the Race in to Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

India Accelerates Alarming Arms Race in South Asia

June 19, 2020

By Sajjad Shaukat

It is most regrettable that by ignoring the modern global trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, India has accelerated alarming arms race in South Asia.

In this regard, in its report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has revealed on February 17, 2020 that in 2019, total global military expenditure rose to $1917 billion in 2019. It said that the five largest spenders in 2019 accounted for 62 percent of expenditure. India is among the world’s largest recipient of arms.´

According to the ‘Military Balance 2018’ report of IISS, “India’s defence budget broke into the world’s top five…beating the UK for the first time…India overtook the UK as the fifth-largest defence spender in the world in 2017 at $52.5 billion, up from $51.1 billion in 2016.”

It is notable that India test-fired its longest-range surface-to-surface nuclear ballistic missile Agni-5 on December 26, 2017.

Agni-5 is capable of striking a target of more than 5,000 km away. The missile can carry a nuclear warhead of more than one tone. It can target almost all of Asia, including Pakistan, China and Europe. While, the Agni-6 is reported to be in the early stages of development and the most advanced version, with a strike-range of 8,000-10,000 km.

New Delhi already has in its arsenal—the Agni 1, 2, 3 and 4 missile systems and supersonic cruise missiles like Brahmos.

According to Times of India, “Once the Agni-V is inducted, India will join the super-exclusive club of countries with ICBMs (missiles with a range of over 5,000-5,500km) alongside the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.”

Although peace and brinksmanship cannot co-exist in the modern era, yet India seeks to destabilize Asia through its aggressive designs, activated with new arms race.

Recall, on September 25, 2008, President Barack Obama, while accusing President Bush’s policies in the region, offered it as part of his policy to encourage India and Pakistan to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and resolve the Kashmir problem to reduce nuclear dangers in South Asia and militancy in the region.

Quite contrary to his commitments, during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010 President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding the removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, including membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

And as part of the double standards, America set aside the Indian poor record regarding the safety of nuclear weapons and materials. Despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

New Delhi’s military is acquiring a slew of new types of equipment from combat aircraft to submarines and artillery.

In this connection, on November 2, 2010, the US agreed to sell India the new F-35 fighter jets, including US F-16 and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons, etc. Besides the acquisition of arms and weapons from other western countries—especially Israel, America is a potential military supplier to India. The US also pressurized IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to grant a waiver to New Delhi for obtaining civil nuclear trade on a larger scale.

Besides, French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation has handed over three Rafale multirole fighter aircraft to the Indian Air Force. Delivery of all 36 aircraft is expected to be completed by April 2022.

In fact, the US wants New Delhi to continue the anti-China and anti-Pakistan roles. Beijing is apprehensive about the emerging threat, as, during the last visit of Obama to New Delhi, the intent of President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quite clear while mentioning about free sea lanes and air passages in the South China Sea.

It is mentionable that during the US President Donald Trump’s two-day visit to India, New Delhi and Washington on February 25, this year signed defence deals worth $3 billion, as President Donald Trump in a joint statement with PM Narendra Modi stated that the two countries have finalised defence deals.

It is worth mentioning that as part of Indian war-mongering diplomacy, in the recent past tensions which still remains, arose between India and China when in response to India’s construction of roads and airstrips adjacent to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which will improve connectivity and enable easier mobility for Indian troops in the area, thousands of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops moved into the regions along the eastern Ladakh border, setting up tents and stationing vehicles and heavy machinery.

Likewise, tension remains over the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, as India keeps on violating the ceasefire-agreement by shelling Pakistani side of Kashmir in wake of the unresolved issue of Kashmir.

India has escalated tensions with Islamabad particularly in the aftermath of the false-flag terror attack at Pulwama-Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). In this respect, on February 27, last year, in response to the Indian so-called pre-emptive airstrike near the town of Balakot, close to the border with Pakistan’s sector of Kashmir, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) shot down two Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets and launched aerial strikes at six targets in the IOK.

Meanwhile, implementing the August 5 announcement of 2019, the Indian central government issued a map on October 31, 2019. In accordance with it, Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and identifies the Pakistani side of Azad Kashmir as well as certain areas of Gilgit-Baltistan as Indian territory. Islamabad and Beijing had rejected the map.

Regarding the India-Nepal confrontation, a new road opened by New Delhi which passes through the disputed territory has roused territorial dispute between the two countries. The link road connects Dharchula in the India state of Uttarakhand to the Lipu Lekh pass near the LAC–India’s border with China.

Notably, under the Pak-China pretext, Indian ex-Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor had said on December 29, 2010 that the Indian army “is now revising its five-year-old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.”

And with the US-led Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy, New Delhi has been acquiring an element of strategic depth by setting up logistical bases in the Indian Ocean for its navy.

In this context, while replying to a question, in his interview, published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008, the then Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer, had surprisingly revealed: “We do have a defense relationship with India, and with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.”

Particularly, the fast-growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship with Russia, the Third World and especially Pakistan—after signing of the agreement, “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” which is, though for the benefit of South Asia, but, has irked the eyes of Americans, Indians and Israelis. Owing to jealousy, America desires to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia.

It is owing to the American dual policy that New Delhi openly follows threatening diplomacy in South Asia. In this respect, in May 1998 when India detonated five nuclear tests and also compelled Pakistan to follow the suit. The then Defense Minister George Fernandes had also declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” Now, by setting aside peace-offers of Beijing and Islamabad, New Delhi has entangled the latter in a deadly arms race.

Similarly, by pursuing the US double standards, President Trump is also favouring India. So, manipulating American conflicting policy in South Asia, New Delhi is destabilizing the regional countries in general and Afghanistan, Pakistan and China in particular by supporting the insurgency in these countries.

While, the international community has been making strenuous efforts for world peace in wake of global financial crisis and war against terrorism, especially against ISIL (Daesh or ISIS), but, emboldened by the US, India has accelerated alarming nuclear arms race in South Asia where people are already facing multiple problems of grave nature. The majority of South Asian people are living below the poverty level, lacking basic facilities like fresh food and clean water. Yielding to acute poverty, every day, some persons commit suicide.

Even, Indian civil society organizations, while complaining of Indian excessive defense spending, pointed out that the government spends very little amount for the betterment of people. Indian defense analyst Ravinder Pal Singh, while indicating New Delhi’s unending defense expenditures at the cost of poverty-alleviation, calls it a guns-versus-butter question.

We can conclude that India has accelerated the alarming arms race in South Asia while following war-like strategy against Pakistan and China.If not checked by the international community, it can culminate in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan or between India and China.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Pakistan is slowly building up its nuclear arsenal

Is Pakistan slowly building up its nuclear arsenal?

ET Online | 17 Jun 2020, 01:06 PM IST

Pak building nuclear arsenal?

Pakistan may be slowly increasing its military missile material holdings, which include both weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium. In a report produced by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(SIPRI), Pakistan has produced mainly HEU, but is increasing its ability to produce plutonium. The country now has 160 nuclear warheads. India has 150.

Getty Images

Nuclear missiles

Pakistan’s nuclear-capable ballistic missile arsenal currently includes two types of medium-range ballistic missile: the liquid-fuelled, road-mobile Ghauri (Hatf-5), with a range of 1250 km; and the two-stage, solid-fuelled, road-mobile Shaheen-II (Hatf-6) with a range of 2000 km. (Representative Image)

Getty Images

On the shopping list

The Pakistan Air Force currently operates 160 Mirage aircraft, of which 120 are fighter-bombers. According to reports, Pakistan plans to buy 36 more Mirage V aircraft from Egypt. (Representative image)

Agencies

Cue from China

Pakistan is acquiring a significant number of JF-17 aircraft, jointly developed with China, to replace the ageing Mirage aircraft. Pakistan currently operates about 100 JF-17s in four to six squadrons, according to the SIPRI report. Pakistan also ordered eight air-independent propulsion-powered conventional submarines from China, the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2022. (Representative Image)

Getty Images

The triad

To achieve secure second-strike capability, Pakistan wants to create a nuclear triad by developing a sea-based nuclear force. The Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile could help develop a nuclear capability for the Pakistan Navy’s three diesel-electric Agosta class submarines. The Babur-3 was first test launched in 2017.’ (Representative Image)

More Nuclear Threats in South Asia

China & India: Border Clash Sparks Fears of Renewed Conflict | National Review

Daniel TenreiroJune 16, 2020 2:22 PM

For decades, China and India have managed to maintain an uneasy peace on their disputed border. That peace may now be in jeopardy.

For the first time since 1975, the long-running Sino–Indian border dispute has turned deadly, claiming the lives of at least 20 troops. For decades, the two sides have avoided active military hostility, despite occasional brinkmanship. While China and India appeared to be pulling back in recent weeks, the deaths could reignite the border stand-off that started in early May.

“During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent face-off took place yesterday with casualties on both sides,” the Indian Army said in a statement Tuesday. An Indian officer and two soldiers died in the clash, and another 17 Indian troops later succumbed to their injuries due to the sub-zero temperatures of the Himalayan border region.

The editor of the Global Times, a Chinese state-run newspaper, said that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had also suffered casualties, but did not specify whether any of its troops had died. “I want to tell the Indian side, don’t be arrogant and misread China’s restraint as being weak,” Hu Xijin said in a tweet. “China doesn’t want to have a clash with India, but we don’t fear it.”

On June 6, the two sides agreed to a de-escalation plan in commander-level talks. The agreement reportedly included a roadmap to disengagement from three of the four stand-off points in the disputed border zone, according to Dhruva Jaishankar, the director of the Observer Research Foundation’s U.S. Initiative. In the ensuing days, officials in the border region conducted further dialogue to facilitate de-escalation.

Now, each side is accusing the other of having violated the agreement.

On Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accused Indian border patrols of crossing into Chinese territory and “provoking and attacking Chinese personnel.” The Indian government responded that the face-off “happened as a result of an attempt by the Chinese side to unilaterally change the status quo” in the Galwan River Valley. While the situation on the ground is unclear, the failure of bilateral diplomacy raises the specter of a protracted confrontation.

The proximate cause of the renewed hostilities is the construction of a road in the Galwan River Valley by the Indian Border Roads Organization in May. The road extends up to the “Line of Actual Control,” which loosely demarcates the disputed border, and gives Indian border patrols access to the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airstrip, a strategically vital supply point. China, which has long maintained military superiority in the remote Himalayan region, sees India’s successful infrastructure program as a territorial threat — especially given the Galwan River Valley’s proximity to a highway between the Chinese regions of Xinjiang and Tibet.

On May 5, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in fisticuffs and stone-throwing on the banks of Pangong Lake, and on May 12 a similar clash broke out in the Naku La region near Tibet. In the subsequent days, the PLA mobilized at least 5,000 troops to the region. According to Ajai Shukla, a former Indian colonel, the PLA also deployed artillery guns in six locations in Ladakh.

The mobilization of artillery violates protocols that effectively demilitarized the border in 1993. Two subsequent agreements that solidified those protocols have helped limit casualties in the long-simmering conflict. While the last death in the region occurred in 1975, confrontations have periodically flared up since Xi Jinping rose to power in China eight years ago. Most recently, in 2017, China’s construction of a road through Doklam, near Bhutan, set off two months of brinkmanship, ending with a Chinese retreat and heightened caution on both sides. Before that, the Chinese twice encroached on Indian territory in Ladakh, in 2013 and 2014.

Monday night’s fatalities mark a turning point in the conflict, calling into question the ability of military protocols to prevent hostilities. While the skirmish did not include the use of weapons, the recent military buildup has positioned both sides to escalate the situation rapidly. Jaishankar says that Chinese and Indian leaders frequently point out that they have “found a way to be responsible and make this a peaceful, if unsettled, border.” But that uneasy status quo may no longer be sustainable.