Compact High Temperature Reactor - CHTR - Towards Meeting India's Process Heat Requirement
New sustainable Technologies to meet the country's burgeoning energy need responsibly.
As per the Ministry of Power's report, "Growth of Electricity Sector in India from 1947-2017", it's current annual, per capita consumption of electricity is around 1122 kWh. For it to reach a stage of moderately high human development, it has to register annual per capita consumption upwards of 5000 kWh. For a Hydrocarbon deficient India, that is a tall order by any estimate. It has already had to nearly double its Crude Oil import over a decade, 2006-2007 [111.15 MT] to 2015-2016 [202 MT], while its Coal import has registered almost 500% increase over the same period [43.08 MT Vs. 199.88 MT] [source]. Thus, any attempt to reach the upper-middle-income country group by 2047, via the current approach is quite unsustainable.
The National Hydrogen Energy Board, convened in 2004, proposed for India to adopt the use of Hydrogen as a fuel, introducing it into its energy mix, to diversify its energy basket. As per the recommendations of the task force, listed in its 'National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap', a greater focus must be made towards transitioning transport vehicles towards using hydrogen as fuel, so as to have the greatest positive impact.
Hydrogen, as a fuel, offers some unique & significant advantages. It has the highest energy density amongst all fuel [120.7 MJ/kg], while also being clean, emitting no Greenhouse gases. A hydrogen economy can, thus, prove greatly beneficial, both, since it is a technically superior fuel, as also helping India achieve energy security. Some of the issues that need to be addressed before it can be widely adopted include sourcing sufficient quantity of hydrogen, safe storage & handling, infrastructure development etc. Hydrogen can be generated by various means, such as coal gasification, steam reforming, electrolysis of water, high temperature thermochemical splitting of water, from biological sources etc..
Of these, the thermo chemical splitting process of water holds the greatest promise, as it has the potential to generate large quantities of hydrogen, with a high degree of efficiency [40-57%]. Temperatures of ~1000 degrees Celsius is needed to carry out the process. For any transition towards a hydrogen-based economy, it is essential that large-scale generation of hydrogen be an economical proposition, which primarily boils down to [no puns intended] being able to achieve the high temperatures needed economically & on a commensurate scale.
With this end in view, the Department of Atomic Energy [DAE], in India, is working towards development of High Temperature Reactor [HTR] technologies. Classified as a Generation IV reactor, the Compact High Temperature Reactor [CHTR] programme, being spearheaded by it's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre [BARC], is proposed to be a Technology Demonstrator platform, to validate concepts & prove technologies necessary to build full-scale HTR.
Operating on the Brayton Cycle, BARC's design is expected to generate 100 KWth of Thermal Power. It's primary function would be to produce heat at around 1100 degree Celsius temperature, needed to split the water molecule, for liberation-generation of Hydrogen, via Thermo-chemical process. The Reject Heat could, then, be used to generate electricity, while Waste Heat could desalinate water.
The CHTR consists of a Core made of 19 Nos. of hexagonally formed hollow Beryllium Oxide [BeO] Moderator rods, within which the fuel would be housed. A mixture of Uranium-233 & Thorium-232, weighing 2.4 kg & 5.6 kg respectively, would fuel the CHTR's Core, that would require refueling every 15 years.
To facilitate high fuel burnup, needed for generating the high temperature [compared to the ~300o C, generated in Power Reactors], the fuel particles would receive a Tri Isotropic [TRISO] coating. Each particle is a mix of fissile, fertile & burnable poison, covered in 4 layers of protection. Each Core would house 14 Million such TRISO coated microsphere fuel particles. These fuel particles would then be pelletized into Fuel Compacts of 10 mm diameter & 35 mm long each, placed inside hollow Graphite Rods, to be used in the CHTR's Core. Each Core would contain around 6840 such pellets.
During operation, a Eutectics alloy of Lead [44.5%] & Bismuth [55.5%] would serve as coolant, absorbing the Nuclear heat generated. An appropriate coolant, given that, among other reasons, it has a Melting Point of 123 degree Celsius & Boiling Point of 1670 degrees Celsius, thus allowing flow to occur in a non-pressurised atmosphere, via natural convective circulation. Liquid Sodium, flowing through the Heat Exchanger, will absorb this heat from the coolant, for end-use utilization.
BARC has also zeroed in on the use of Prismatic Rods of Beryllium Oxide as Reflector [6 movable, 12 movable], in addition to Graphite, to confine the Neutrons within the Core, for perpetuating Chain Reaction.
It is, pretty much, engineering Safety into the CHTR's system. This is exemplified no better than the use of Lead-Bismuth Eutectic alloy, with its 1670 degrees Celsius boiling point, as coolant, to transfer heat energy at around 1100 degrees of operating temperature. Similarly, the TRISO-coated fuel microspheres that maintain it's leak integrity till 1600 degrees can, therefore, safely function under the designed operating temperatures of the CHTR.
The negative operating characteristics of the fuel [Doppler Coefficient], the Moderator [Temperature Coefficient] & Coolant [various Reactivity effects], adds to it's safe characteristics. Proliferation-proof is the underlying USP of such Reactors, since they do not produce any usable fissile material.
As keeping with the current focus of implementing passive systems of safety measures, the CHTR too will be equipped with multiple levels of redundancies of passive safety systems.
Not surprisingly, the Technological-Engineering challenges that need to be addressed to realise BARC has also zeroed in on the use of Prismatic Rods of Beryllium Oxide as Reflector [6 movable, 12 movable], in addition to Graphite, to confine the Neutrons within the Core, for perpetuating Chain Reaction.
It is, pretty much, engineering Safety into the CHTR's system. This is exemplified no better than the use of Lead-Bismuth Eutectic alloy, with its 1670 degrees Celsius boiling point, as coolant, to transfer heat energy at around 1100 degrees of operating temperature. Similarly, the TRISO-coated fuel microspheres that maintain it's leak integrity till 1600 degrees can, therefore, safely function under the designed operating temperatures of the CHTR.
The negative operating characteristics of the fuel [Doppler Coefficient], the Moderator [Temperature Coefficient] & Coolant [various Reactivity effects], adds to it's safe characteristics. Proliferation-proof is the underlying USP of such Reactors, since they do not produce any usable fissile material.
As keeping with the current focus of implementing passive systems of safety measures, the CHTR too will be equipped with multiple levels of redundancies of passive safety systems.
Not surprisingly, the Technological-Engineering challenges that need to be addressed to
That said, the CHTR proposes to use Uranium-233 in its fuel mix, a scarce resource in the country, that India plans to breed in larger quantities its Stage-II Nuclear Power Plant Reactors, to be built as part of its unique 3-Stage Nuclear Power Programme. High gestation period of technologies, listed in the table above, require, therefore, for developmental efforts to be carried out in the present time, to be ready to harness the material, upon availability.
The Compact High Temperature Reactor is also answer to the question, posed a few years ago. Thank you to the anonymous person, who recently enquired about it.
For a detailed, technical overview of the various aspects of the CHTR, BARC Highlights [Chapter 3], provides the most comprehensive information.
Along with BARC's pursuit of developing the CHTR, it has also already initiated preliminary studies to undertake development of its follow-on, a practical HTR, capable of generating Hydrogen on industrial scale. The Innovative High Temperature Reactor [IHTR] is proposed to be a 600 MWth setup, that would incorporate systems & technologies validated by the CHTR. Preliminary studies, based on Thermal Hydraulics & Temperature Distribution analysis, suggest adopting a Pebble Bed Reactor Core design, using Molten Salt as Coolant.
Some additional technology thrusts, specific to the IHTR include, manufacturing pebble-type fuel compacts, reprocessing the pebble fuel, loading & unloading system for the fuel, manufacturing process for fabricating large-size components from the brittle Nuclear-grade Graphite, among others.
DAE/BARC has been quite quiet about progresses made developments in it's High Temperature Reactor development efforts. One can only hope that work on this front has been going on apace, absence of public updates, notwithstanding. A technology of National importance needed to achieve energy independence & security.
Nuclear weapons are arguably among the most dangerous inventions of man. The scale and rapidity of the destruction they can cause is unparalleled, as evidenced by the two occasions that they were used on civilian populations and by the numerous tests conducted on testing ranges. It follows that any country choosing to possess nuclear weapons is creating an existential threat, not only for its adversaries but also for itself and for its general neighborhood. Such places are all very dangerous to be in.
Given the immensity and gravity of this danger, it might seem silly and ghoulish to quibble over which nuclear weapon country is a greater danger than the others. Nevertheless, in the 70-year history of nuclear weapons such comparisons have often been made by diplomats, national leaders, scholars, and the media. Motivations have varied. Mostly they come from genuine concern for the safety of that region and of the world in general. But sometimes it is part of the thrust and parry of diplomatic engagement, or a strategic step to name and shame a country. It can also be a strategy for individuals and nongovernmental organizations specializing in that region to enhance the importance of their scholarly niche and ensure the next tranche of grant money.
In this genre, the flavor of the decade has been the notion that “South Asia is the most dangerous place on Earth.” This view was launched after a remark by President Bill Clinton, about two years after the nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan in May 1998. Shortly before he was to make his first state visit to India, Clinton said: “The most dangerous place in the world today, I think you could argue, is the Indian subcontinent and the line of control in Kashmir.”The statement quickly gained wide currency.
Since then it has become customary for analysts in think tanks and Western media to routinely and casually use this phrase or something equivalent.
This perception, however, is not widely shared in the Indian sub-continent. In fact, soon after Clinton made his statement and during a formal banquet in India honoring Clinton’s visit,Indian President K.R.Narayanan cautioned:
“It has been suggested that the Indian sub-continent is the most dangerous place in the world to-day and Kashmir is a nuclear flash-point. These alarmist descriptions will only encourage those who want to break the peace and indulge in terrorism and violence.”
A similarly sober assessment continues to be provided by experts in India. These include not just politicians and civilian officials who could conceivably be expected to paint a reassuring picture, but also senior military officers who would seem to be inclined to be hawkish and belligerent.
.
For example, Lt. Gen. Vijay Oberoi, former Vice Chief of Army Staff, has written:
“Keeping rhetoric, verbal statements, and saber rattling aside, both India and Pakistan know that even a single use of a nuclear weapon—whether in [its] own or [on the] adversary’s side of the border, would invite massive retaliation and destruction, not only for both countries or substantial parts of both countries, but also have severe adverse impact for the region and many parts of the world. Consequently, it is illogical to conclude that the escalatory ladder will climb to the nuclear level as a matter of course.”
Such sober views are not limited only to Indian analysts who, one might say, are compelled by regional pride to be biased in favor of thinking highly of their ability to handle nuclear responsibility in a crisis. Some analysts in the Western media have taken a similar stance, such as the BBC’s Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus
: “In going nuclear, and in a sense in getting away with it, they [India and Pakistan] have provided a dangerous precedent. That is certainly the way western analysts would view it. Though local experts in the region would probably echo their own governments in insisting that if nuclear deterrence is okay for Britain, France, Russia, and the United states—not to mention China—then it should be fine for India and Pakistan as well.”
Meanwhile, other Westerners took a very different view. In 2007, four very distinguished elder statesmen of the US establishment—George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn—published a very influentialarticle in the Wall Street Journal calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. Such a call for total disarmament by veterans of the Cold War was widely welcomed around the world. But one of the arguments they used to advocate this goal was less than universally welcome
: “New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?”
Although the distinguished authors used very diplomatic language in attributing the prevention of nuclear disasters to good fortune, the undertone was that the “new nuclear states” may not have the same technical capability or the nuclear maturity that the two Cold Warriors had to safely maintain their nuclear arsenals. That is a bit rich, given that the time when we came closest to a nuclear exchange was during the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962, which lasted for 13 days as the world waited with bated breath to see who would blink first, the United States or the Soviet Union. No threat of remotely similar proportions has emerged from South Asia in the 19 years since Pakistan announced that it had conducted nuclear warhead tests and the region can be said to be nuclearized by both parties.
Our weapons are not on a ready-to-launch state of alert. In India, and as far as I know also in Pakistan, the warheads are kept de-mated from the missiles.
Despite this, outbreaks of alarmist comments about South Asia recur from time to time from think tanks and scholars in the West. One recent example was reportedly a talk at the prestigious Carnegie Conferenceheld at Washington in March 2017, which in turn led to a flurry of articles in major US newspapers. The talk and a subsequent New York Times article about it drew their conclusions from some re-interpretations of our No First Use doctrine by some retired Indian officials to permit a first strike in some circumstances. True, these officials are highly respected people who had held apex positions in the government‘s strategic establishment. But there is no evidence that their post–retirement views represent in any way the policies of the government currently—or for that matter, even when they held office.
In fact, one can cite several examples of restrained behavior in the subcontinent in support of India's claim that nuclear weapons, while very dangerous anywhere, are no more so in the hands of the Indians and Pakistanis. Situations that could have escalated from the conventional level to a nuclear exchange did not do so. The first example, theKargil “war” of 1999, happened just a year after the two countries had turned nuclear. It began with the Indian discovery that Pakistani soldiers had occupied some strategic mountain peaks on the Indian side and had to be evicted.
Although it was limited to a narrow 100-mile long strip of uninhibited mountain ridges abutting the Line of Control, or de facto border, in Kashmir, it went on for three months, involving not only ground troops but also the Indian Air force. If there ever was a time to seriously worry about a nuclear war, it was then. The two countries, after conducting their respective nuclear tests in May 1998, were presumably in possession of a few warheads each. One could have legitimately worried that with little prior experience in possessing nuclear arsenals, one or the other side might have erred on the side of excessive military action or aggressive bluster, and take them both down the treacherous slope towards nuclear exchange.
But that did not happen.
The war was not allowed to escalate. The Indian government had given firm orders to its Air Force that beyond evicting the intruders, its airplanes should not cross the border in hot pursuit. The Pakistanis in turn, with reportedly some counseling by the Americans, withdrew from the remaining occupied areas. Cease fire followed.
The next few years witnessed what could be viewed as far more serious challenges to nuclear stability in the subcontinent. First came the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliamenton December 13, 2001, by the Pakistan-supported terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Fortunately, it was repelled by the Indian security detail, but even if a single terrorist had managed to enter the building, there were a hundred unarmed members of the parliament inside, ready for picking. Despite the massive uproar this caused in India, with calls for immediate revenge, the Indian government kept its cool and took no military action. For purposes of comparison, imagine the dilemma President Trump would face if some armed outfit from Mexico snuck across the newly renovated border wall and attacked the Capitol building while the US Congress was in session.
What the Parliament attack in New Delhi did result in was a show of strength by India through a military mobilization (“Operation Parakram”) at the border the following summer, leading to a similar response by Pakistan. The troops were lined up on their respective sides of the border in a face-to-face confrontation which lasted for months. From time to time sporadic incidents on the border or a burst of overheated rhetoric from either side would generate rumors in the foreign media that war between the two nuclear armed neighbors was imminent.
I recall being on a brief visit to the United States in that summer of 2002. My American friends expressed concern over the situation back in India and were equally concerned over my nonchalance on the matter, given that my family was living in New Delhi. So, mostly to reassure my friends, I called my wife that evening and was informed that there was no feeling of imminent danger, let alone panic on the streets of Delhi. The poor were as usual worried about their next meal, while the middle classes was pre-occupied with upward mobility in a growing economy!
It must be acknowledged that during this face-to-face standoff, leaders of other nations, especially the United States, contacted their counterparts in India and Pakistan, expressing their concern and urging them not to let the situation go out of control. While their concern and advice did contribute to the resolution of that crisis, it does not follow that without their input the two protagonists would have not have, on their own, avoided stepping into the abyss.
Terrorist attacks continued to be launched even after that, not only within Kashmirbut also on the Indian mainland. The worst of them was the attack in Mumbai in 2008 in which over 160 people were killed. This attack also received more attention than usual in the West, because several foreigners from the United States and Israel were among the casualties. The Indian public reaction to this attack was stronger than ever before and, as credible evidence of the involvement of Pakistan-based outfits grew, so did calls for reprisal. Yet once again the Indian government resisted pressures to retaliate. Instead, it was content to register its outrage through diplomatic channels, by providing evidence on how and by whom the attacks were planned.
It is not as though India has been the only one to exercise restraint. The other side has, in its own way, done that too. Once it became clear, after Mumbai, that the Indian government might be forced by public opinion to launch a punitive strike the next time there was a major act of terror on India, there have in fact been no more attacks of that magnitude for several years since. Whoever organizes and funds these attacks from Pakistani soil has been told to refrain from doing so. How much of this is because of pressure from the world community and how much due to the wisdom of Pakistani strategists, we do not know. But the fact is that nothing close to the Mumbai or Parliament attack in size or significance has happened since then.
Another instance which effectively became an act of Pakistani restraint was their response to the Indian “surgical strikes” on Pakistani infiltration camps last November. Although terrorism on the scale of Mumbai has not happened since then, there has been a resurgence of attacks on Indian military bases near the border, first at the Pathankot airbaseon January 2016 and then at Uri on September 18, 2016. Seven Indian soldiers were killed at the former and 18 at the latter. The Indian government decided that this time a calibrated punitive measure was finally called for and launched a set of coordinated strikes across the border on the launch pads of the infiltrators. The scale of that counterattack was not much higher than standard cross-border attacks that have been taking place for years in Kashmir. The difference this time was that the Indians publicly announced these counter strikes. In Asia, where saving face is as important a criterion as any other in deciding foreign policy, the announcement of the Indian counterattack was also a public reprimand to Pakistan. Such an “insult” could easily have generated an uncontainable public demand in Pakistan for a tit-for tat response and the whole situation could easily have escalated to something bigger. But the Pakistani government chose not to retaliate, either with military action or even threatening rhetoric. Instead they chose to ridicule the Indian claims of a major “surgical strike” and declared that no such things had happened. Now, I do not know what exactly motivated the Pakistani army to take such a position of denial. But the net result, once again, was that matters were prevented from escalating.
No one is arguing that the nuclearization of South Asia has not been a very dangerous development. It certainly has. There is also no doubt that all the nuclear weapon nations of the world, including those in South Asia, should relentlessly strive to get rid of these weapons. Specifically, making South Asia a nuclear weapons-free region is primarily the responsibility of us Indians and the Pakistanis. In support of this ongoing effort by right-thinking people here, advice, counsel, and analysis coming from other nations are of course very welcome. But such inputs will be counter-productive if they are condescending and simplistic. That will only put the backs up of conservatives and ultra-nationalists in South Asia, and make the prospects of arms reduction even more distant.
Truck-mounted Missiles on display at the IDEAS 2008 defence exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan. Photo by SyedNaqvi90, Wikipedia Commons.
JANUARY 4, 2017
Largely spurred by the loss of East Pakistan1, and a perception of a hostile, bigger and better-armed India, Pakistan had achieved a capability “to rapidly assemble a nuclear device if necessary” around the late-1980s2.
During this period, the Cold War was at its peak and Pakistan imbibed an important lesson:
that from 1945 onwards, the two nuclear-weapons armed adversaries, USSR/Warsaw Pact and NATO, have confronted each other through proxies in distant parts of the world – but never fought each other directly.
Simultaneously, Pakistan experienced first-hand the methods used by the US-Saudi combine (i.e. the use of mujahideen) to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan and concluded that such irregular forces served two vital purposes; one – they provided a low-cost, asymmetric and disruptive option against superior conventional forces of the USSR; and two – they made the Soviet Union spend disproportionate amounts of resources on countering the asymmetric threat with little or no damage to the sponsoring states3.
It is thus no coincidence that Pakistan’s ‘proxy war’ against India coincided with it having attained nuclear capability and the Soviet preparations for a final withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pakistan then began using two primary tools to have its way in the sub-continent, (i) using terrorism and ‘proxy war’ to bleed India; and (ii) brandishing its nuclear arsenal to thwart punitive actions by India. Evidently, for Pakistan, nuclear weapons are:
An instrument that allows it to wage offensive proxy war, but provide it a defence against retaliatory punitive action.
A strategic equalizer of power asymmetry, i.e. they balance India’s conventional military superiority.
A strategic lever for extracting maximum aid from the USA, Europe, China and some countries in the Middle-East.
The initial period saw Pakistan drop subtle hints about possessing nuclear weapons (e.g. Operation Brass Tacks, 1987). Its blatant ‘sabre-rattling’ of nuclear weapons however, began astride the 1999 Kargil Conflict and Operation Parakaram (December 2001-2002). This was followed by a periodic ‘lowering of the nuclear threshold ’. No nuclear-weapons State evolves a nuclear deterrence strategy in isolation. Hence, Pakistan too seems to have analyzed other doctrines and evidently, Russia’s April 2000 strategic military doctrine, which espoused the concept of ‘De-escalation’, seems to have influenced Pakistan. However, the threat scenario, the Indian nuclear response strategy and the international environment possibly led to a perception in Pakistan that its nuclear deterrence doctrine was perhaps not being taken too seriously by India. It then tweaked that doctrine by co-opting Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs). However, even such a ‘full-spectrum’ response has loopholes. This range of issues is analyzed below.
Russia’s Strategic Military Doctrine
As the USSR was breaking up, the Russian leaders saw how the US-led coalition defeated (1991)the Soviet-equipped and Soviet-trained Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein in just a few days. In November 1993, the nascent Russian government under Boris Yeltsin outlined the “Main Provisions of the Military Doctrine”. This advocated use of nuclear weapons only in a global war. Between 1997 and 1999, Moscow saw the NATO wage an intelligence-led precision military campaign in Yugoslavia. By now, the Russian armed forces were a pale shadow of its predecessor, the Soviet war machine.
It was thus evident to Moscow that the conventional forces capabilities of the US were far beyond Russia’s own capacities at that juncture. Since the fundamental causes of the Kosovo conflict seemed quite akin to the reasons for the Chechen conflict, the Russian leadership apprehended that the US may also interfere in Chechnya, where the second Chechen war was building up.
The Russian government hence commenced work on a new military doctrine under Vladimir Putin, then-Secretary of Russia’s National Security Council (March 1999-August 1999). This doctrine, signed in April 2000 by Acting President Vladimir Putin, replaced the November 1993 document. The new doctrine propounded that if Russia was faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defence, it may respond with a limited nuclear strike, which would then act as a motivation for the adversary to ‘De-escalate’ the conflict. In October 2004, President Putin unveiled the “Immediate Tasks of Development of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”. This report formally developed the 2000 Military Doctrine and postulated two missions for Russia’s nuclear weapons, i.e. (i) deterrence of a large-scale attack against Russia; and (ii) ‘De-escalation’ of a limited conflict in case deterrence fails.
“De-escalation”
There were clear differences between this new doctrine and the Soviet nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War.The latter had threatened inflicting of unacceptable damage on an enemy and ‘MAD’ (Mutual Assured Destruction). Under such conditions, the use of nuclear weapons was unthinkable as it entailed “rapid escalation to the exchange of massive nuclear strikes”. Russia’s new doctrine however, held out the threat of “tailored damage” and was aimed at making an aggressor weigh the cost he will suffer versus the strategic benefit he may derive from that conflict. The unstated rationale was that while the US may like to interfere in Chechnya and assist the rebels, the strategic gains that may accrue to the US from such a venture were not worth risking a nuclear exchange with Russia, because for Moscow, retaining territorial control over Chechnya was of core national interest. Besides, Russia’s new doctrine favoured striking adversarial military targets stretching outwards from the battlefield itself, rather than the population or economic centres that were typical targets in the Cold War.
The new doctrine also underscored a close linkage between the concept of ‘De-escalation’ and ‘Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons’ / TNWs.
The Russian doctrine is however, not entirely new. At a conceptual level, it borrows from Thomas Schelling’s seminal books entitled
‘The Strategy of Conflict’ (1960) [http://elcenia.com/iamapirate/schelling.pdf ]
and
‘Arms and Influence’ (1966). [http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/Schelling-Arms-and-Influence-Essay.pdf ]
At the operational level, it mirrors the 1960s era US policy, which had contemplated limited use of nuclear weapons (including TNWs and ‘neutron bombs’) to oppose Soviet aggression in Europe (as expressed, e.g. in the 1963 document produced by the US National Security Council entitled “The Management and Termination of War with the Soviet Union”).
Evolution of Pakistan’s Nuclear Strategy
A dispassionate analysis of the outcomes of the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak Wars suggests that insofar as the India’s Western front was concerned, there was a kind of strategic stalemate albeit in favour of India, with both India and Pakistan capturing some amounts of territory. Pakistan however lost the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), which was located across the Indian sub-continent. In sum:the Indo-Pak conventional forces asymmetry was not overwhelmingly against Pakistan.
However, in 1979, the USA, one of Pakistan’s main military backers, suspended most aid to Pakistan under the Symington Amendment in response to Pakistan’s covert construction of a uranium enrichment facility. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan few months later (December 1979) heralded a fresh era in US-Pakistan relations. The US waived the months-old Symington sanctions for six years (till 1985), gave a US$3.2 billion economic and military aid package to Pakistan, and along with Saudi Arabia, financed the ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan. To continue aid to Pakistan beyond 1985, the US Congress then approved the ‘Pressler Amendment’. This required the US President to annually certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Presidents Reagan and Bush certified the same till the Soviets withdrew (1989) from Afghanistan. In October 1990, after President Bush declined to furnish the Pressler certification, the US administration cut off all aid to Pakistan. The Pressler sanctions were followed by Commonwealth sanctions after General Musharraf’s coup in October 1999. Together, they ensured there was very little supply of Western military equipment to Pakistan from 1990 onwards. Although Pakistan had aligned itself with the US in September 2001 and was given MNNA status in 2004, major arms transfers from the US commenced only after 2008. Pakistan however had effectively utilized the window to rapidly progress its nuclear weapons program.
By end-1990s, the Pakistani armed forces had major equipment deficiencies, an aspect which was very apparent during Operation Parakaram (2001-2002). Nevertheless, possession of nuclear weapons had left Pakistan quite smug. The 1999 Kargil Conflict shook Pakistan’s confidence on account of two reasons:
One: The Indian military action proved that there is “space” between ‘breakdown of diplomacy and commencement of a nuclear war’, and by corollary, for a short duration conflict with limited objectives in a ‘nuclear threat environment’. This issue needs to be seen in light of the fact that while a nuclear weapons state can “draw a line” and dare an adversary to cross it, the same is not a cast-iron defence. The US’ nuclear arsenal did not dissuade China from moving its forces into North Korea in 1950; Israel nuclear weapons could not deter Syria and Egypt from invading Israel in 1973; Indian nuclear weapons did not discourage Pakistan from conducting an audacious military operation in 1999 (Kargil); and importantly, Pakistani nuclear weapons did not deter India from re-taking illegally occupied areas during the Kargil Conflict.
Two: The international community was deeply averse to posturing of nuclear weapons by Pakistan to deter conflict, or their use for conflict resolution.
The 1999 Kargil Conflict hence led Pakistan to search for a better strategic doctrine to thwart punitive action by India while it pursued its “foreign policy” with the help of terrorist and militant entities.
Meanwhile in India, the persistence of terrorist attacks, lessons of the Kargil Conflict and Operation Parakaram, an examination of the India-Pakistan conventional forces balance and the international environment led the Indian military to following conclusions:
Due to less strategic depth and shorter lines of communication, Pakistan could mobilize its forces in a shorter time frame vis-Ã -vis India. Consequently, the Pakistani Army was ready to handle an Indian offensive by the time India completed its protracted mobilization.
India’s long mobilization period provided ‘space’ for intervention by major international players, especially after Pakistan started ‘sabre-rattling’ its nuclear weapons.
The conventional forces asymmetry between India and Pakistan is not so much that it guarantees India an outright victory in a short war. Hence India needed to achieve surprise, and then beat in time and space the arrival of Pakistani troops, especially its reserves, in most sectors.
Any future war with Pakistan would likely be limited in scope and in time. Therefore, both sides would strive to make gains in the limited period available prior to conflict termination. In turn, this required application of maximum military force in the shortest time frame. This made management of escalation dynamics difficult.
A war with limited objectives however, could allow India to operate below Pakistan’s actual nuclear threshold(s).
The above lessons and analysis by Indian planners led to the evolution of the so-called Cold Start Doctrine (CSD), (a.k.a. the “Pro-Active Doctrine”), which was enunciated around 2005. The CSD envisions the Indian Army mobilising and commencing strikes almost simultaneously, and operating without crossing thresholds which could trigger a nuclear response from Pakistan. The CSD was critically examined by Pakistan’s military, who concluded that
(i) the threat posed by the Indian CSD is credible and Pakistan-specific; and
(ii) the main concern was an apparent lack of readiness of Pakistani armed forces to operate in the environment a CSD could generate, particularly because Pakistan’s conventional war-fighting capability had been debilitated by various US and Western sanctions, and its own economic capability.
Wargames by the Pakistani military also concluded that it faced difficulties in evolving a military strategy that deters conventional conflict. Soon thereafter, Pakistan initiated two parallel plans:
A mid- to long-term plan to develop conventional capabilities to counter India’s CSD.
A nuclear weapons-dependent strategy to thwart conflict with India in the interim period as it built its conventional capabilities / armed forces.
Developing Conventional Capabilities to Counter India’s CSD: This had two components:
One: Reduce the response timings of the Pakistani Army by:
Re-locating certain formations closer to the IB.
Building critical infrastructure (bridges, rail links, defence canals, etc) to reduce response time and improve intra- and inter-theatre mobility, as also obstacles to impose delay on Indian offensive forces.
Updating its Mobilization Regulations. (This is reflected in the Pakistan Army Doctrine 2011 [ http://www.erewise.com/current-affairs/pakistan-s-new-army-doctrine_art52b2971169cc9.html#.WG_PANJ97cs ] (a.k.a. “Comprehensive Response” doctrine), which states, inter alia, that considering “the possibility of Pakistan being drawn into a war on a very short notice, all formations [should] organize —- in a manner that effective combat potential can be generated within 24 to 48 hours from the corps to unit level and two to three days at the Army level.”)
Two:Force Development Strategy: Pakistan replaced the 15-Year Long Term Force Modernisation Plan with a more ambitious Armed Forces Development Plan-2025. This was focused on acquisition of select “hi-tech” weapon platforms; equipment which improves the Pakistani military’s strike and night-fighting capabilities; force multipliers to improve its situational awareness and ISR capabilities; Special Forces; air mobility; rapid reaction forces etc.
Nuclear Weapons-Dependent Strategy to Thwart Conflict:The problem with conventional force development is that it has a long timeline. Hence, deeply conscious of the growing conventional forces asymmetry with India and aware that there would be limits to India’s patience on terrorism and ‘proxy war’, Pakistan came under a strategic compulsion to posture nuclear weapons. It therefore co-opted another stratagem, viz, “Lowering of its Nuclear Threshold” and began to project that‘any war with India would become a nuclear war’ in order to thwart any conflict. For this, Pakistan appears to have also picked a sub-set of nuclear deterrence theory, viz, that “if there is stability at nuclear levels, then there can be instability at conventional levels (i.e. two adversaries can engage in conventional war); but if there is instability at nuclear levels (as Pakistan is posturing), then there will be stability at conventional levels” (i.e. an adversary will refrain from waging conventional war). Pakistan also enunciated five broad nuclear ‘thresholds’ beyond which Pakistan may be compelled to use nuclear weapons (viz, (A) any attempt to target its nuclear assets; (B) a territorial / space threshold; (C) military threshold / force degradation; (D) economic threshold; and (E) a political threshold).
Similarities: Pakistan and Russian Doctrines:The similarities between the Russian and Pakistani doctrines are evident. Both nations faced a conventional forces asymmetry. Both doctrines are aimed at averting war by holding out the threat of “tailored damage” to an adversary through the use of nuclear weapons, but if war was imposed on it, then to try and “de-escalate” the conflict. The overall aim was to hold out the threat of a limited nuclear strike in order to compel an adversary to either accept the status quo ante (as had happened after “26/11” and other terrorist strikes including the recent killings in Uri) – or force an adversary to retract from the conflict started by him.
That Pakistan has been posturing nuclear weapons primarily to deter India is also evident from statements by various Pakistani leaders. In 2004, Mahmud Ali Durrani4 described four policy objectives for Islamabad’s nuclear weapons, i.e. deter all forms of external aggression; deter through a combination of conventional and strategic forces; deter counter-force strategies by securing strategic assets and threatening nuclear retaliation; and stabilize strategic deterrence in South Asia. In 2006, Pakistani officials indicated that their nuclear posture was aimed at preserving territorial integrity against Indian attack, prevent military escalation, and counter India’s conventional superiority5. Air Commodore Khalid Banuri, Director of Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs in Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, stated (December 2011) that Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal is part of an effort “to deny India the space for launching any kind of aggression against Pakistan.”6 In October 2015, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry asserted that its “nuclear programme is one dimensional: stopping Indian aggression before it happens. It is not for starting a war. It is for deterrence. 7”
Difference in Applicability: Although Pakistan seems to have been influenced by the Russian policy of ‘De-escalation’, there are differences in applicability which perhaps were not apparent at that time. These were:
Unlike India and Pakistan, Russia and the USA are not geographically contiguous countries. In turn, the distance limited the damage to the aggressor (in this case, the USA) to just its military assets in the battlefield and its periphery; the distance (and the time of flight) also gave both nations time to talk on a nuclear hotline to preclude an all-out nuclear war.
US intervention in Russia / Russian periphery would largely stem from geo-political interests, and not on account of mutual, acrimonious, long-standing territorial claims or dastardly, persistent terrorist actions.
Both the US and Russia possessed a complete nuclear triad and by extension, second-strike capabilities; this tended to give some stability to the nuclear regime. Additionally, both nations had long-standing nuclear treaties.
Problems With the Pakistani Doctrine: Over a period of time therefore, Pakistan perhaps started to perceive that India was not taking its nuclear threats too seriously. Few reasons for this premise appear to be as follows:
One: Survivability of Nuclear Assets for Second-Strike: India vs Pakistan.Although India yet does not have a submarine-based deterrence, it does enjoy a de-facto ‘second-strike’ capability because Pakistani missiles cannot cover the entire Indian peninsula (with Pakistan developing new land-based missiles like the Shaheen-III, this is set to change). The survivability of Pakistan’s nuclear assets is therefore in question considering (i) its lack of strategic depth; and (ii) the absence of a sea-based deterrence to complete the nuclear ‘triad’. In other words, India would be able to dominate the nuclear escalation ladder despite Pakistan’s ‘First Use’.
Two: Indian Response:The Indian nuclear doctrine espouses ‘No First Use’ (NFU) but ‘massive retaliation’ if India or its forces are targeted with a nuclear weapon. This posed a dilemma for Pakistani planners : if Pakistan uses a nuclear weapon against Indian offensive forces even inside Pakistan in order to avoid the limited punishment that the Indian Armed Forces may inflict, the Indian nuclear response could potentially annihilate Pakistan.Hence, for Pakistan, the nuclear game may not be worth the candle it is played for. This dilemma would have been partly addressed if Pakistan had the ability to deplete the Indian nuclear arsenal with a ‘first’ / disarming strike, or had nuclear assets that could survive an Indian retaliatory strike (i.e. a credible ‘second strike’ capability).
Three: If Pakistan used a large nuclear weapon as per its prescribed “thresholds” against an ingressed Indian strike force, Pakistan itself would sustain a lot of collateral damage, with much of the target zone being affected by fallout also.
Four: Pakistan and India are contiguous countries. Considering the pattern of seasonal winds, there are good chances that in some months, the fallout from a nuclear strike may be blown back over Pakistan.
Five:Pakistan’s nuclear sabre-rattling has been drawing unwarranted attention to its nuclear program, especially of the USA. This had the potential to affect Pakistan-China cooperation in the nuclear field, as well as Pakistan’s quest for nuclear energy.
Pakistan’s Dual-Theme: Use of Nuclear Weapons: Pakistan has been indirectly ‘conveying” to India that it has “lowered its nuclear threshold” and “any war will be a nuclear war”. To the international community however, Pakistan has been posturing as a responsible nuclear power and stating that Pakistan ‘will maintain an adequate conventional military force in order to raise its nuclear threshold’’. In May 2007, Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, in a presentation on‘Elements of Pakistan’s Nuclear Policy’ in France, spelt out, among other issues, that Pakistan’s (i) nuclear capability is solely for the purpose of deterrence of aggression; (ii) will maintain an adequate conventional military force in order to raise its nuclear threshold; and (iii) will pursue a Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) and other nuclear risk reduction measures in the region. A March 2012 US State Department report8 stated that “Pakistan ……. nuclear use would be a ‘last resort’ under circumstances that are unthinkable”. Earlier, in 1999, former Pakistan Army Corps Commander Lt Gen Sardar FS Lodhi had outlined that Pakistan’s nuclear response would be ‘graduated’9, i.e. (i) first, it would render a warning; (ii) it would then conduct a demonstrative nuclear explosion; (iii) this would be followed by a nuclear strike over enemy troops in Pakistani territory; and (iv) the final step would be a nuclear strike against a small border cantonment in India; followed by a strike(s) against Indian counter-value / counter-force targets. This dual-theme – one for India and another for the international community – also created doubts about Pakistan may actually do.
Tweaking the Existing Doctrine
It thus seems that despite nuclear ‘sabre-rattling’, Pakistan felt that it has not been able to posture a credible strategic nuclear deterrence that will completely deter India from punitive actions. Besides, the regional security environment had evolved. Pakistan’s quest for a battlefield nuclear attack capability against Indian forces and a shift towards “full-spectrum” response appears to be a tacit admission of this doubt. Pakistan hence seems to have looked at NATO’s flexible response strategy withTNWs and co-opted some elements of that. Given Pakistan’s limited strategic depth, it’s pre-occupation with counter-insurgency operations in its western tribal regions, and its economic and internal security situation, a ‘limited objectives’ war by India will be a total war for Pakistan : it cannot sustain even a 20-25 kms deep ingress in the built-up areas of Punjab.Hence, Pakistan began modifying its nuclear posture by developing new short-range nuclear-capable weapon systems to counter military threats below the strategic level, with the overall aim being to create a full-spectrum deterrent that is designed not only to respond to nuclear attacks but to also counter an Indian conventional incursion into Pakistani territory. In March 2015, Lt Gen (Retd) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, former DG Strategic Plans Division (SPD) acknowledged that Pakistan “possesses a variety of nuclear weapons, in different categories; at the strategic level, at the operational level, and the tactical level ”.10
The 60-km range Nasr / HATF-IX Battlefield Range Ballistic Missile (BRBM) with a TNW seem to be the resulting brainwave. With the Nasr-TNW combination, Pakistan is exploring the space for a flexible response which falls between a massive albeit suicidal nuclear response, engaging in a catastrophic conventional battle – and doing nothing. The compact size, mobility and ‘shoot-and-scoot’ capability of the Nasr rocket are supposed to address survivability concerns; its short range, and comparatively flatter ballistic trajectory would make it difficult for any Indian Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) to intercept it; its tactical capability would allow it to target the Indian Army’s offensive ‘Integrated Battle Groups’ that have broken through into Pakistan; a single-digit kiloton weapon would reduce collateral damage within Pakistan; and importantly, a limited nuclear response astride the border / within Pakistan would pose a response dilemma11 to Indian leaders, particularly with Pakistan also posturing strategic weapons.
Pakistani leaders like Lt Gen (Retd) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, former DG SPD and Dr. Aman Rashid, Pakistan Foreign Ministry official, have stated that the development of the Nasr-TNW combination by Pakistan is a result of (i) the widening military gap between Pakistan and India on account of latter’s massive weapons acquisition and huge defence budget; and (ii) offensive doctrines postulated by India under the nuclear overhang, viz, the CSD. Separately, Pakistani strategic thinkers12 opine that “the Pakistani rationale for TNW is that these weapons are an insurance policy against surprise and a guarantee at the operational level. . . . which will buy time against a strategic defeat,” and that TNWs can deter “Indian military aggression” because the Nasr-TNW combination generates “tactical uncertainty, strategic hesitation and international resolve to prevent nuclear war.” The 2015 13 report by the US Naval Postgraduate School states that “TNWs would theoretically plug the gap and create a force multiplier effect for a thinly stretched Pakistani Army”. The report adds that considering the Nasr’s range (60 kms), there are three possible-use scenarios, i.e. (i) “at 3 kms [break-in stage], Pakistan would have the option of a trans-border employment”; (ii) “at 20 kms [penetration depth], Pakistan would have the option of employment across the border or on its own territory”; and (iii) “at 35 kms, Pakistan would be faced with employment on its own territory”.
However, questions remain about the operational status of the TNW component of the Nasr/HATF-IX system. Although the delivery rocket per se is ready and functional, it is not clear whether Pakistan has been able to sufficiently miniaturize a nuclear weapon to fit inside the Nasr rocket. While the US intelligence community (National Air & Space Intelligence Center report of 2013) has listed the Nasr-TNW as a deployed system since 2013, as per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (‘Pakistani Nuclear Forces’, 01 November 2016), “operational deployment of the nuclear version may still be in its early stages.” A former Pakistani official knowledgeable about his country’s nuclear weapons program has stated that Pakistan has not deployed these weapons14. Even if Pakistan has been able to do so, considering that it will likely use Plutonium for such miniaturization, there is a limit to the numbers of TNWs that Pakistan can currently field. This constrains its ability to stem a full-scale Indian offensive consisting of a number of offensive battle groups.
Bomb Designing Skills and Reliability of the Miniaturised Weapon 15: As per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 16, Pakistani bomb designers, who have been at it since the 1970s and have had help from China, appear to have low- to medium-level technical skills. However, let us assume that Pakistan has achieved miniaturisation. In the US, extensive experimentation was needed to create such a small, workable device. In absence of full testing, Pakistan could, at best, have worked on the explosive and detonator, which is not the same as testing with actual materials and device.In sum:assuming there is a TNW for the Nasr, what Pakistan may possess is an untested, unreliable device.
Numbers of Warheads for the Nasr Rocket:The International Panel on Fissile Materials has estimated that as of late 2015, Pakistan had an inventory of approximately 3100 kg of weapon-grade Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and at least 190 kg of weapon-grade plutonium. This material is theoretically enough to produce 204–306 warheads, assuming that each warhead’s solid core uses either 12–18 kg of weapon-grade HEU or 4–6 kg of plutonium. However, calculating the number of warheads based solely on the fissile material inventory tends to produce inflated warhead estimates as a number of factors are not cognized, e.g. warhead design, its proficiency, warhead production rates, reserve fissile material, etc 17. The space and shape constraints in the Nasr rocket mean that it will likely require a linear nuclear warhead. A plutonium-based, linear implosion design can be miniaturised to fit inside the Nasr rocket, but such a device requires almost double the quantity of plutonium as used in a spherical device 18. Assuming current availability of about 220 kgs of Plutonium and a requirement of about 10 kg of Plutonium (at almost double the rate) per linear-design weapon, this plutonium stockpile translates into roughly 22 TNWs. It is not clear whether Pakistan will appropriate the existing Plutonium stockpile for just the Nasr-TNW combo, or will also distribute some Plutonium for its Babur / HATF-7 Ground Launched Cruise Missile and the Ra’ad / HATF-8 Air Launched Cruise Missile. As per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, both are much slimmer than Pakistan’s ballistic missiles, suggesting success with warhead miniaturization based on plutonium instead of uranium. If it distributes the available Plutonium for warheads for three different sets of weapons (i.e. the Nasr rocket, Babur and the Ra’ad cruise missiles, then given the 60 km range of the Nasr rocket and the fact that India may deploy a number of IBGs astride a long border, Pakistan will need a larger number of warheads for the Nasr to pose a credible threat to a full-scale Indian offensive. The danger however lies in rapid escalation even if one TNW is used. The US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Vincent Stewart stated in his testimony (Senate Armed Services Committee; February 9, 2016) that the Islamabad’s “evolving doctrine associated with tactical nuclear weapons, increases the risk of an incident or accident.”19
Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Armoured Vehicles:The Indian IBGs would comprise heavily armoured tanks and lightly armoured Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs). As per a 1994 study20and associated simulations and analysis, incapacitating a tank requires an overpressure of about 3 ATM. The distances from ground zero to which various weapon yields can generate this overpressure are shown in Table opposite. Although the number of tanks one warhead can destroy will depend on the tactical disposition (e.g. in a Bridge Head; or dispersed during an advance), the fact remains that multiple warheads will be required to destroy an IBG. As per a 2001 study by Ashley J Tellis, Pakistan would need about “37 weapons of 15 KT (or 57 weapons of 8 KT) to operationally disable an Indian armored division”21. In other words, the likely damage potential from the NASR’s TNW appears limited and its battlefield utility seems minimal. To pose a credible threat on the battlefield, Pakistan will have to co-opt SRBMs with tactical capability like the Abdali (HATF-II) and Ghaznavi (HATF-III) (these could be deployed with simple fission warheads). Thus, instead of providing any advantage in battle, a limited nuclear attack could in fact seriously complicate the task of Pakistani leaders.
Problems : Deployment of TNWs
TNWs tend to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use and their employment against a nuclear-armed opponent carries a significant danger of rapid escalation to strategic levels. They are hence inherently de-stabilizing. TNWs also encourage the concept of forward-basing. In turn, they become vulnerable to an attack by an adversary especially through air power; such vulnerability to attack encourages their pre-emptive use in the first place (“use it or lose it”). The Indian ‘Prahaar’ battlefield tactical ballistic missile, the ‘Nirbhay’ LACM, the ‘Brahmos’ supersonic cruise missile-Su-30 fighter aircraft combination are some weapons that India could possibly use for pre-emptive strikes against the mobile Nasr platform. The use of multiple nuclear warheads astride the border / on Pakistani territory could also render the affected area unliveable for many years; this needs to be seen in light of the fact that the fighting was aimed at retaining control/use of that territory in the first place. It is for all these reasons that many experts feel that considering the current availability of massive conventional bombs of sizes up to 13.6 tons (including fuel-air explosive variants), low single-digit kiloton or sub-kiloton nuclear weapons are more of a problem than a solution.
Additionally, Pakistan’s Nasr-TNW programme has aroused international concerns on the possibility of TNWs being delegated to Pakistani military field commanders, their consequent vulnerability during field transportation to jihadi elements, etc. In turn, the Pakistani top leadership has been emphasizing that:
As the use of nuclear weapon including TNWs would have strategic implications, these would only be used as a weapon of last resort, primarily to defend the country’s sovereignty.
Pakistan has developed adequate conventional responses to India’s CSD. TNWs would only come into play once conventional responses are deemed inadequate.
The command and control of all nuclear weapons including the TNWs would remain centralized, the decision to use nuclear weapons would only be taken at the National Command Authority (NCA) and there would be no pre-delegation of authority.
The geography of Pakistan is favourable to deploying TNWs at forward locations within few hours and therefore, there would be no pre-deployment of such weapons and SRBMs.
As evident, some of the above statements too are dual-themed. It is noteworthy that after the 1998 Indo-Pak nuclear tests, Pakistani military officers had stressed that any use of nuclear weapons would have strategic consequences 22; however, the Pakistani establishment soon began “lowering its nuclear threshold”. Now, after a fair amount of drum-beating on the Nasr-TNW capability as a battlefield weapon, Pakistan seems to be reiterating that use of even TNWs will have strategic implications and will be used as a last resort. Whether they follow this up in practice is not known. That said, there is need to take note of the Pak Army’s considerable commitment in FATA-KPP (Federally Administered Tribal Area; Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province), which makes defence of Pakistan against an Indian offensive very difficult. While it has sufficient reserves to respond to LoC violations, it cannot fight an Indian attack across both the LoC and the IB. This raises the stakes for Pakistan to fall back on nuclear weapons, particularly TNWs.
Conclusion
Except in World War-II, historically, it is conventionally inferior powers that have threatened use of nuclear weapons in order to deter stronger adversaries. The NATO’s Cold War doctrine of using TNWs to deter the Warsaw Pact from invading Europe, and Russia’s 2000/2004 doctrine threatening the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs) to deter the USA/NATO from intervening in areas of core interest to Russia, are quite similar to Pakistan’s doctrine. However, while nuclear weapons command attention and generate tremendous fear, their utility for warfighting seems limited in view of the long-term, dispersed damage they can inflict.
Considering the changing international dynamics, the foreign aid profile, and Pakistan’s economic and security situation, it is unlikely that Pakistan will be able to strengthen its conventional capability adequately in the near term. An additional problem for the Pakistani Army is its continuing involvement in counter-insurgency / stability operations in its western tribal regions. It is hence assessed that Pakistan will continue to fine-tune its nuclear doctrine and strategy, and ‘sabre-rattle’ nuclear weapons.
For India, the military and political challenge is to (i) find out where Pakistan’s real threshold lies, and then calibrate use of force surgically in a manner akin to “salami slicing tactics”; and (ii) operate above the level of Sub-Conventional Operations/covert operations – but below a full-scale war so that Pakistan’s actual ‘thresholds’, as opposed to propagandized ones, are not crossed.
Lastly: the USA has oft propounded a view that if Pakistan can build credible conventional forces, it’s reliance on nuclear weapons would lessen. History does not support such a view and such a strengthening could not only allow Pakistan to pursue a more pro-active, militant-terrorist entities based “foreign policy” especially vis-Ã -vis India, but may also increase India’s reliance on nuclear weapons (currently, India’s conventional military power allows it to have a lower reliance on nuclear weapons, as is evident from our nuclear policy). The dilemma therefore is quite stark and there are indicators that India could also be looking at including flexible response options in its nuclear strategy.
About the author:
* Brigadier Kuldip Singh (retd),
commissioned in the Indian Army (Armoured Corps) in 1976, has, apart from regimental, staff, technical, instructional and command appointments in the military, also served (i) in India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation on two national level projects; (ii) as the Director Coordination of the Defence Intelligence Agency during it’s formative years; and (iii) for about ten years as the Principal Defence Specialist / Head of the Defence Wing in the National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India. In the latter appointment, he was the senior military and geo-political expert, with experience in military issues, intelligence and information handling; advanced technologies, nuclear, CBRN, space and cyber issues; and in identifying and communicating risks and opportunities of possible political, security, diplomatic, technical and economic developments. He also has extensive international experience.
Notes:
1. Shahid-Ur Rehman, Long Road to Chagai: Untold Story of Pakistan’s Nuclear Quest, (Islamabad: Print Wise Publication), 1999 2. 1982 US National Intelligence Estimate; 1993 Report to US Congress on Status of China, India and Pakistan Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs. 3. A CIA document No. CIA/Sov/87/10007 of Feb 1987 (declassified in 2000) outlines that between Dec 1979 and 1986, the Soviets spent Rubles 15 billion (or about US$48 billion in 1984 prices), leading former General Secretary Gorbachev to refer to the Afghan involvement as a “bleeding wound” and a “substantial drain on the Soviet economy”. The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989; in 1991, the USSR broke up, partly due to economic travails. 4. “Pakistan’s Strategic Thinking and the Role of Nuclear Weapons,” Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper 37, July 2004. 5. Naeem Salik, “Minimum Deterrence and India Pakistan Nuclear Dialogue: Case Study on Pakistan,” Landau Network Centro Volta South Asia Security Project Case Study, January 2006 6. Memorandum from Air Commodore Khalid Banuri, Director of Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs in the SPD, received by the US’ Congressional research Service on December 4, 2011. 7. “Tactical Nuclear arms to Ward off War Threat” Pak Foreign Office, October 20, 2015. 8. Report To Congress: Update on Progress toward Regional Nuclear Non-proliferation in South Asia, submitted March 20, 2012. 9. Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine, Pakistan Defence Journal, 1999; Heidelberg papers in South Asian & Comparative Politics (Oct 2002) 10. A Conversation With Gen. Khalid Kidwai-2015. “Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference 2015.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March 23, 2015. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/03-230315carnegieKIDWAI.pdf 11. Pakistan may posture that it has used tactical nuclear weapons against an “aggressor” and that too within Pakistan 12. Shireen Mazari, “Why the Hatf IX (Nasr) is Essential for Pakistan’s Deterrence Posture & Doctrine”; Institute for Strategic Studies, Islamabad. http://ssii.com.pk/str/articles.php?subaction=showfull&id=1353855324&ucat=13&template=Headlines&value1news=value1news&var1news=value1news. 13. “Battlefield Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence Strategies: Phase III”, by the Center on Contemporary Conflict, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey; March 2015. 14. Interview to analysts from the US’ Congressional Research Service, on July 14, 2016; CRS Report “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons”, August 1, 2016. 15. National Institute of Advanced Studies/International Strategic and Security Studies Programme, Bangalore, “Hatf-IX / NASR – Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapon : Implications for Indo-Pak deterrence”, dated July 2013 16. “Pakistani Nuclear Forces, 2015”; 21 Oct 2015 17. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Pakistani Nuclear Forces”, November 2016. 18. National Institute of Advanced Studies/International Strategic and Security Studies Programme, Bangalore, “Hatf-IX / NASR – Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapon : Implications for Indo-Pak deterrence”, dated July 2013 19. Vincent R. Stewart, Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Worldwide Threat Assessment, Armed Services Committee, February 9, 2016 20. “Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability”. 21. Ashley J. Tellis, “India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal”, RAND Corporation, 2001. 22. Michael Krepon, The Stimson Centre, “Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons”, April 24, 2012.
