Short-range missiles that carry a smaller warhead and are easier to transport would give Pakistan ‘second-strike capability’ if a catastrophic nuclear exchange destroyed all land-based weapons
In one of the world’s most volatile regions, Pakistan is advancing toward a sea-based missile capability and expanding its interest in tactical nuclear warheads, Washington Post said in a report Sunday quoting Pakistani and Western analysts.
The development of nuclear missiles that could be fired from a Navy ship or submarine would give Pakistan “second-strike” capability if a catastrophic nuclear exchange destroyed all land-based weapons. But the acceleration of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs is renewing international concern about the vulnerability of those weapons in a country home to more than two dozen Islamist extremist groups.
“The assurances Pakistan has given the world about the safety of its nuclear program will be severely tested with short-range and sea-based systems, but they are coming,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the StimsonCenter, a Washington-based global security think tank.
“A cardinal principle of Pakistan’s nuclear program has been: ‘Don’t worry; we separate warheads from launchers.’ Well, that is very hard to do at sea.”
For more than a decade, Pakistan has sent signals that it’s attempting to bolster its nuclear arsenal with “tactical” weapons, short-range missiles that carry a smaller warhead and are easier to transport.
Over the past two years, Pakistan has conducted at least eight tests of various land-based ballistic or cruise missiles that it says are capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Last September, Sharif, citing “evolving security dynamics in South Asia,” said Pakistan is developing “a full spectrum deterrence capability to deter all forms of aggression.”
The next step of Pakistan’s strategy includes an effort to develop nuclear warheads suitable for deployment from the Indian Ocean, either from warships or from one of the country’s five diesel-powered Navy submarines, analysts say. In a sign of that ambition, Pakistan in 2012 created the Naval Strategic Force command, which is similar to the air force and army commands that oversee nuclear weapons.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, asked if the United States was concerned about a sea-launched Pakistani weapon, said it was up to Pakistan to discuss its programs and plans. But, she said, “We continue to urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capabilities. We continue to encourage efforts to promote confidence-building and stability and discourage actions that might destabilize the region.”
It is unclear how much direct knowledge Sharif’s government has about the country’s nuclear weapons and missile-development programs, which are controlled by the powerful military’s Strategic Planning Directorate, the newspaper claimed. But the prime minister is the chairman of the country’s National Command Authority, a group of civilian and military officials who would decide whether to launch a nuclear weapon.
Pakistani military officials declined to comment on the nuclear program. They note, however, that a January report by the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) named Pakistan the “most improved” in safeguarding nuclear materials.
Analysts say much about Pakistan’s program remains a mystery. Western experts, for example, are divided over whether Pakistan has the ability to shrink warheads enough for use with tactical or launched weapons.
Now Pakistan’s fourth plutonium production reactor is also nearing completion, and while most assessments of the country’s warhead inventory have not changed much in recent years, analysts say Pakistan continues to produce weapons material and develop delivery vehicles, positioning itself for another spurt of rapid growth at any time. “They are going to make as much fissile material as they possibly can and keep making as many warheads as they possibly can,” said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leading Pakistani nuclear expert and physicist.
Pakistan has repeatedly tested its indigenously produced, nuclear-capable, Babur cruise missile, which has a range of 400 miles and can strike targets at land and sea, military officials said. In 2011 and last year, Pakistan also tested a new tactical, nuclear-capable, battlefield missile that has a range of just 37 miles.
“This is the miniaturisation of warheads,” said Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic studies and nuclear expert at Quaid-i-AzamUniversity in Islamabad.
Maria Sultan, chairwoman of the Islamabad-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, an organization with close links to Pakistani military and intelligence officials, said the short-range missile is designed as a signal to India’s military.
“We are saying, ‘We have target acquisition for very small targets as well, so it’s really not a great idea to come attack us,’?” Sultan said. “Before, we only had big weapons, so there was a gap in our deterrence, which is why we have gone for tactical nuclear weapons and cruise missiles.
Indian dream to dominate Indian Ocean rests not on its not lame warships and submarine capabilities but rather on its poor leadership, bad training and wanting safety practices. They have to measure up to their ambition – but once they do, they shall invite unwelcome adversaries. Pakistan was compelled to respond to such developments which have put question mark on Pakistan's naval capabilities.
Azar i agree with you but we should not forget the indian accdents happend in 2014 alone.. my woory is rather than pakistan India is in hurry and writer seems to be deliberately ignoring the indian factors..the region is made volatile by india because of immature deals , arms race and so on…. we should not forget INS Betwa (F39), so called indigenously built Brahmaputra class guided missile frigate, the sonar system of the frigate was cracked, leading to faulty readings and ingress of saltwater into sensitive equipment. January 2014: In the second incident in the same month, INS Vipul (K46), a veer class corvette of the elite 22nd Killer Missile Vessel Squadron, was detected with a hole in its pillar compartment which forced the ship back into the harbor while it was on an operational deployment. February 2014: On 3 February, caused damage to its propellers. Following the incident February 2014: On 26 February, INS Sindhuratna (S59), a Kilo-class submarine, had a fire detected on board caused death of two officers. Incident led to the resignation of Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) Admiral D K Joshi on 26 February 2014, who owned moral responsibility for the incidents in the past few months. March 2014: INS Kolkata, toxic gas leak killing Commander Kuntal Wadhwa instantly. May 2014: INS Ganga (F22) suffered a explosion in the boiler room
Pakistan has its own strategic rationale for developing a naval nuclear capability which is at least partly independent of a simple desire to mirror India's advances. For the pursuance of second strike capability, naval power is the major ingredient so that a state can better respond or deter others from attacking. In South Asia actually India has through out its history went for military developments out of status quo and prestige same applies to its naval power development. Pakistan is a states where talent is limitless but due to lack of economic resources and political leadership is making Pakistan to suffer in the development of naval power. It is the need of time for Pakistan to develop its indigenous naval power in order to counter India's naval paranoia.
Interestingly, everybody stands in kind of shock as if Pakistan is going towards some unusual or never heard before venture. Simultaneously, comes across with this new headline that US now likely to keep tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Why US is doing this in order to protect itself and allies. Pakistan is solely aimed to secure its statehood against the complex security situation of South Asia. Tactical Nuclear Weapons has been compelled by India to enter in South Asia. Indian Cold Start Doctrine is instrumental; a state doctrine which itself permits limited conventional attack in Pakistani territory. Does the world expect that Pakistan should make no counter measures against such an open offence? If India can explore the seas why not Pakistan. There are much more commonalities between the two than why to highlight one just in order to address discriminatory approach towards India.
While questioning on Pakistan's nuclear expansion I suggest international community to dig in as to what extent Indian nuclear ambitions are? Isn’t it a mischief that India tested its first nuclear device in May 1974 and now has full capabilities of the nuclear fuel cycle under the devise of civilian nuclear technology? It is beyond the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and still remains outside of these regimes. However, India has a facility-specific safeguards agreement in place with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) allowing it to participate in global civilian nuclear technology commerce.
Comments are closed.