Indian Defence Review

Just few years before India got its independence an unhealthy collision took place between the worlds of physics and politics. In 1945 the Americans nuked Japan. Since then in some parts of the world national security has become synonymous with nuclear weapons. Subsequently, during the Cold War era these weapons did succeed in bringing stability. In the Indian context these weapons have remained at the core of its national security debate. The debate subsided for sometime post the 1998 Pokhran tests, may be because of some sense of achievement.

However, the debate again came to the forefront during the Kargil conflict and during Op Parakram, an aftermath of attacks on Indian Parliament. Subsequently, the issue was hotly debated during Indo–US nuclear deal. Now, with pressure mounting on India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and with the news that Pakistan is ‘sharpening’ it’s nuclear arsenal the frenzy of debate on this issue has increased further. The good part of any nuclear weapons debate is that there are no grey areas. Either you are pro-nuclear weapons or anti-nuclear weapons. But, the bad part is that the pro-nuclear weapons lobby has become so much obsessed with nuclear weapons that they are unable to see life beyond nuclear weapons, particularly after questions being raised about the correctness of the ‘yield’ about Indian’s hydrogen bomb explosion some eleven years back. The issue about the efficacy of India’s nuclear deterrence is being debated with much rigor.  As of date these weapons are known to offer the best deterrence mechanism to any country.  The pro-nuclear lobby forgets that what is central to this debate is ‘deterrence’ and nuclear weapons are just a mechanism to achieve this and could even be dispensed with if better alternatives are found.

It is a reality that many Indians, particularly the so called academic community and strategic thinkers view the world with a western prism. So, naturally since western theorists and intellectuals view nuclear weapons as an ultimate personification of deterrence so do their Indian followers. But, the issue is – ‘are nuclear weapons the only weapons of deterrence which should be used to scare the enemy, particularly in the 21st century, when military technology has become more advanced?’ Is it worthwhile to depend on this rudimentary technology of the 1940s? Is it not essential to check the feasibility of finding an alternative to the nuclear deterrence, particularly when it is clear that it’s difficult to resume testing to upgrade the existing nuclear weapon stockpiles?

Nuclear weapons became important not only because they have tremendous deterrence potential but also because this potential was showcased and marketed by few powers intelligently and effectively. It was told to the world by these powers that ‘this is the only deterrence mechanism available’ and people believed it. Few other means of deterrence were ‘concealed’ shrewdly. Take the case of biological weapons. Americans understood that these weapons have tremendous deterrence potential, are relatively easy to make and in future any state could deter them by possessing them. Up came the historic? Biological and Toxic weapons Convention Treaty (BTWC) in 1972. It was a brainchild of the Nixon–Kissinger duo which convinced the entire world that nobody should possess such weapons because they are against humanity! In the end with almost every state signing this treaty what Nixon achieved was to stop the growth of weapons which have potential to deter Americans.

With nuclear weapons the story is a bit different. The earlier possessors of these weapons are also incidentally the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). They used this situation beautifully to their advantage. Luckily for them, the technology and the raw material (uranium/plutonium) required for the production of nuclear weapons is not easily available and accessible. These powers joined hands together to increase the level of difficulty tremendously for other states to lay their hands on nuclear weapons technology by evolving various global structures, arms control and disarmament regimes and technology transfer rules.

Unfortunately?, few countries like India defeated them in this game and managed to achieve the status of ‘nuclear weapon state’ which naturally they are not ready to accept. But, all this is history. Any deterrence mechanism cannot remain a static force. Your enemies need to be told time and again that you are better than them and they dare not attack you. On the other hand since India succeeded in getting a civilian energy nuclear deal in spite of not being a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the ‘giver community’ feels that India should sign the CTBT in return. However, India is the only country in the world with nuclear neighbors with whom it had earlier fought wars and has many unresolved issues pending till date. In fact, a significant amount of India’s defence planning, preparedness and expenditure is done to address any likely threats from these neighbors.

In view of this, the ‘number and yield’ debate is obvious. However, now the time has come for India to look for additional and newer options to increase its deterrence potential because of the existing nature of the geopolitical landscape. In the 21st century politically it could be unwise on India’s part to resume nuclear weapon testing immediately. India is not a renegade state like North Korea. 2009 is not 1998 so it would be difficult for India to alter the prevailing global nuclear dictate all of a sudden. But, at the same time threats from Pakistan and China are getting further complicated. Hence, India needs weapons with higher deterrence potential. There is a need for India to supplement its existing deterrence mechanism with additional non-nuclear weapons which have the capability to ‘deter’. But, are such weapons available? Yes, major powers have already tested few weapons which could be termed as more dangerous than nuclear weapons. India could always develop such technologies or import them and that too in all probability without breaking any international legal/moral regime. Today, India has a much advanced military industrial complex. It is possible to develop such military weaponry with or without international assistance. The biggest challenge however lies in successfully ‘marketing’ these weapons as weapons of deterrence.

In the 21st century, with the advent of new technologies like lasers, nanotechnology, and biotechnology and smart munition, it is incorrect to look only towards nuclear technology to showcase the military might of the state. Modern military technologies allow a state to display its ‘power of deterrence’ without breaking the so-called global nuclear pretence. This is possible only if the state uses the emerging technologies with a view to find an alternative to nuclear weapons.

Before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, the United States had successfully tested one of the biggest weapons of this era, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), which, incidentally, is also known as the ‘mother of all bombs’. This test carried out by the US Air Force was that of the biggest conventional bomb ever tested. It was a 21,000-pound (9,500 kilogram) device essentially blasted to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that the US has options beyond nuclear weapons. This GBU-43/B is a very large, powerful and accurately delivered GPS-guided high explosive. This bomb contains 18,700 pounds of H6, an explosive that is a mixture of RDX, TNT, and aluminum. Such composition is normally used for underwater blast weapons. At the time of testing this weapon did not give any specific seismic signature (as seen during nuclear testing), but what is important is that it demonstrated a capability of a huge munition capable of attacking both hard targets and anti-personal targets with great accuracy and with results as dangerous as a tactical nuclear weapon. This weapon is intended to have a high altitude release, allowing for greater stand-off range for the delivery vehicle. It also needs to be mentioned that a specific dedicated delivery platform is not necessary for such type of weapons, which at times becomes necessity for nuclear weapons. Such weapons are expected to have a substantial psychological impact like nuclear weapons. This weapon clearly demonstrates a possibility of carrying a deterrence potential for the enemy. However, additional research is needed in this regard to increase its lethality.

During 2007, Russia tested the world’s most powerful vacuum bomb, the biggest non-nuclear explosion in the world which unleashed a destructive shockwave with the power of a nuclear blast. Russians have dubbed this weapon as the ‘father of all bombs’ (interestingly, there is no official name available for this weapon). Such weapons are essentially conceived as psychological weapons, just like nuclear weapons. Exactly six years after 9/11, the Russian military had announced on September 11, 2007 that they had tested what it called as the ‘Father of All Bombs’. This bomb was four times more powerful than the MOAB which was tested by the Americans four years back. A strategic bomber was used for delivering this bomb over the test site. This bomb had a yield equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. It was reported to have a blast radius of 300 meters, double that of the MOAB. As per the Russian sources this bomb is half the size of the MOAB but much more deadly with its performance. Emerging technologies like nanotechnology have been used towards building this device and the temperature at the epicenter of the blast of this test was reported to be twice as high as that of the MOAB.

Apart from this, there are microwave bombs like E-bombs that emit powerful pulses of energy capable of destroying enemy electronics, disable communications, and block vehicle ignitions. Weapons like E-bombs, which could even be categorized as non-lethal weapons posses a great potential to act as a deterrent. This category of weapons which are technically not meant for killing any human beings have the potential for creating havoc in the enemy country leading to an unprecedented chaos. States would find it almost impossible to provide any form of protection to its population from likely happenings when such weapons are put in use. The damage could come from various unexpected quarters from stopping of railway and airline networks to mismanagement of various public utility structures. Usages of E-bombs could lead to disturbing oil rig operations, opening of dam gates (which in turn could lead to flooding) to total disturbance in the functioning of various social utility services from sanitary to medical services.

The basic idea of an E-bomb which is also called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon is to overwhelm electrical circuitry with an intense electromagnetic field. An E-bomb is a weapon designed to take advantage of human dependency on electricity. Any form of sabotage to electric systems would not only lead to disturbing lives of average civilians but would also make armies immobile and dysfunctional. An E-bomb would actually destroy most of the machines that use electricity. Generators would become useless and public and private transportation systems would fail and so would communication systems. Within few seconds this weapon, if designed and delivered intelligently, could convert a city into an archeological site!

One more category of weapons where work is under progress for many years is Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Military scientists are working towards designing and developing various types of DEWs, like high energy lasers, particle beam and high power microwave weapons, which, if designed successfully, could give nuclear weapons a run for their money. It is expected that this technology would mature to an usable status in the coming few years. States like India need to invest in these technologies well in time in order to have an advantage over their adversary.

There are indications that states like China are investing in alternate models of deterrence. China conducted an anti-satellite test (ASAT) during January 2007 and projected their capabilities to cause damage to space assets of the adversary. This act of China could open the floodgates towards the weaponization of space and may encourage few states towards investing into space weapons to deter their enemies. The existing space disarmament regime has many shortfalls and putting weapons into space may not lead to breach of any international treaty mechanisms. In short, possession of space weapons has a great deterrence value.

Apart from these weapons there are few other military experiments which are being carried out and  need to be tested for their deterrence potential. For almost two decades the US Air Force is reportedly sponsoring an experiment titled HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme). This is supposed to be an ionosphere modification project. Scientists expect that it may be possible to modify the ionosphere and near space (a region 60 km above earth’s surface and extending up to 200 km) by conducting certain experiments and erecting an array of particular type of antennas on the ground. Any human made changes in the ionosphere characteristics from earth may help to blow spacecrafts of other countries while flying or disrupt communications over large portions of interest.

It is likely that any major success in this project would give the US the ability to create a ‘full global shield’ that would destroy ballistic missiles by overheating their electronic guiding systems as they fly in that region. It is also expected that control over the ionosphere could allow a control not only over communication capabilities, but it could also be possible to manipulate local weather.

The above discussion demonstrates that there is a life beyond nuclear weapons as far as devising deterrence mechanism is concerned. Today, India needs to develop and test such type of new weapons. More importantly, an effort should be made to advertise such weapons in the security lexicon as weapons of deterrence. The scientific and strategic community has a major role to play in this regard. It needs to be understood that the deterrence lies more in the mind than anywhere else. The biggest challenge is to change the existing nuclear mindset. The age-old perception that states are rational need not be necessarily true in the modern-day context. There is a need to start a rigorous debate on non-nuclear means of deterrence. The present global nuclear dictate indirectly forces Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) like India (NWS outside the NPT) to remain subservient to global nuclear policies. The nuclear bigwigs would always make it difficult for India to resume testing. For all these years these powers have fooled the entire world by keeping the nuclear keys in their own hands. Time has come to change the entire discourse of deterrence beyond nuclear weapons and India needs to take a lead in it.

In the aftermath of Kargil, terror attacks on the Indian Parliament and 26/11 it is important to explore the efficacy of the existing nuclear deterrence mechanism for non-conventional threats. It is almost certain that existing nuclear weapons have failed to provide any deterrence for the 21st century asymmetric threats. At the same time (nuclear) deterrence is a must to fight conventional threats. It is also important to understand that if fructification of the Indo–US nuclear deal is taken as a starting point then in coming years India would have very little option to induct fully developed and tested hydrogen bombs in their arsenal. This essentially leads to a situation where India would have to depend on the rudimentary (may be the relic of the World War II) nuclear weapon technology. Unfortunately, India’s adversaries are well aware of this reality. Hence, there is a need to look for alternative deterrence mechanism to fit into the more volatile security environment of the 21st century. In view of this there is a need to invest in non-nuclear weapons and more importantly change the existing discourse of ‘deterrence’ which has been held hostage by nuclear weapons for all these years.