Pakistan’s New Missile Disrupts Nuclear Stability in South Asia

[Srinivas]

At a time there are missile interceptors being developed which can travel Mach 10 , e.g. Hq 26 .
The threat of nuclear tipped missile is some what exaggerated.

There are capabilities to intercept the missile in the boost phase itself.

Arka Biswas
March 27, 2015

TweetShareShare

Pakistan recently test-fired a surface-to-surface ballistic missile, Shaheen III. Capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the missile is estimated to have a maximum range of 2750 km. While it has been claimed to provide a boost to Pakistan’s strategic depth and to deterrence stability in South Asia, a careful examination of how Shaheen III impacts the deterrence equation between India and Pakistan captures the latest Pakistani missile to be instead counter-productive.

Shaheen III is the latest addition in the Shaheen series. The previously developed and successfully tested missile, Shaheen II, is estimated to have a range of around 2500 km. The range of Shaheen II continues to remain a rough estimate. For instance, right after Pakistan tested Shaheen II in March 2004, Pakistan’s National Engineering and Science Commission (NESCOM) chairman, Samar Mubarakmand, was quoted saying that “the full range of the missile was 2,500 km although it was tested only to 2,000 km, the edge of Pakistan’s sea limits.” Another ISPR press statement issued on April 18, 2008, after the second successful test of the Shaheen II missile, however, confirmed the missile to have a range of 2000 km. But leading Pakistani newspapers claim Shaheen II to have a range of 1500 km. Based on an estimated range of 2000 km, a map has been made by C SIS that depicts the area (marked with blue dotted lines) that Pakistan could target using Shaheen II ballistic missile. This is critical to note as we question what new capabilities Shaheen III brings to the table.



Right after the launch of Shaheen III, Shahid Latif, retired commander of Pakistan’s air force was quoted as saying that “India doesn’t have its safe havens anymore.” With the ability to reach India’s extreme eastern frontiers, Director General of the Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Zubair Mahmood Hayat, called Shaheen III “a major step towards strengthening Pakistan’s deterrence capability” vis-à-vis India. However, despite all the claims made by strategic experts and military leaders in Pakistan, there remains question on whether Shaheen III enhances the deterrence stability or is rather counter-productive.

From India’s perspective, Shaheen III does not really change the situation much as far as the credibility of Pakistan’s deterrent is concerned. Looking purely from a strategic point of view, Pakistan has had the ability to target all of India’s major population centers with Shaheen II, whose maximum range (2500 km) is estimated to be shorter than that of Shaheen III by only 250 km. Even if we go by the estimated range of Shaheen II at 2000 km which has been successfully tested by Pakistan and confirmed by ISPR, the missile would only miss the extreme eastern tips of India. Thus, when it comes down to “deterrence capability,” Shaheen II can deliver a nuclear warhead to almost all of the strategic sites of India to make the preexisting deterrent credible.

Shaheen III could offer Pakistan the ability to target Indian naval vessels in the Bay of Bengal, but for that Pakistan would need a highly effective and accurate terminal guidance system which could help a missile trace the targeted vessel’s movement and adjust its trajectory accordingly after flying across the entire Indian mainland. Another asset which would make Shaheen III stand out could be the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) capabilities, but Pakistan could use these payloads on Shaheen II as well, if it is able to develop or acquire them.

The purpose that Shaheen III could serve best, however, is to give Pakistan the ability to target Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Bay of Bengal. This, as has been argued by General Khalid Kidwai, former head of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and advisor to Pakistan’s National Command Authority in a conversation at the 2015 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, is the “sole purpose for the development of Shaheen III.” However, in the same conversation, he also added that by covering the islands of Andaman and Nicobar, Pakistan aims to take away India’s second-strike capability. But that goes far off from making Shaheen III a strategic deterrent, which Pakistan claims it to be. Instead of strengthening the concept of mutually-assured destruction (MAD), which Gen. Kidwai argues to be critical for South Asia, attempts to take away India’s second-strike capability will further destabilize the deterrence equation. It will push India to further cooperate with its global partners on its Ballistic Missile Defence Programme which will definitely be counter-productive for Pakistan.

Thus, while much has been stated and claimed about Shaheen III from the Indian perspective, it really does not bring anything new to the tableas far as deterrence stability is concerned. On the other hand, if Pakistan aims to take-away India’s second-strike capability, as Gen. Kidwai argues the purpose to be, it will only push India to further enhance its BMD systems. Indian doctrine of credible minimum deterrence is solely based on having a nuclear force that is capable of surviving a nuclear first-strike and launching a second strike which can inflict massive damage to the opponent to make the deterrent credible. Retention of second-strike capability is therefore a vital for stability in South Asia and development of Shaheen III by Pakistan with the aim of taking away India’s second-strike capability will only prove to be counter-productive for the former.

Arka Biswas is a SAV Visiting Fellow at the Stimson Center. This article originally appeared on South Asian Voices, here.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/pakistan’s-new-missile-disrupts-nuclear-stability-south-asia-12495?page=2

 

[Theparadox]

Isn't pakistani nuke tech. bought from NK so why would you compare them, it's obvious NK would be better.

Pakistani leaders tend to be satisfied with very little. This is dangerous for a state like Pakistan if defence production is affected by this attitude. So far North Korea has not been touched because of her audacity to develop and display what they need for her defence. Pakistan has a lot to learn from that crisis. With a GDP of only a fraction of Pakistan's GDP they are about to have a true ICBM as a deterrent while Pakistan has been testing these missiles with one or two thousand kilometer range for ages.

Meanwhile India tested nuclear capable Prithvi-II just today.

 

[SHAH820]

At a time there are missile interceptors being developed which can travel Mach 10 , e.g. Hq 26 .
The threat of nuclear tipped missile is some what exaggerated.

There are capabilities to intercept the missile in the boost phase itself.

they can intercept missile single war head not MIRV and no tech is available to intercept MIRV,
if any kind of tech get developed to intercept it new kind of missile will be introduce like prompt global strike
and for india even BDM uses infrared satellite's ground raddars to only detect its target and even then they dont guaranteed that they can stop it with in time (which is about 2-5 hours depending from where they are launch) and india dont have such things where BDM tests were rigged and its only take few mins to carry any strike between india and pakistan

Isn't pakistani nuke tech. bought from NK so why would you compare them, it's obvious NK would be better.




Meanwhile India tested nuclear capable Prithvi-II just today.

yeah and who you are again CIA spend $5 billion just to know how pakistan transports it nuke and failed miserably they dont even know where pakistan storing their nukes and then here you people who are listed as most stupid people in the pretends to know every thing you people changed the named of russian cruise missile and pretends that it was made by you you people cant even give one single prove of your mythical strike and think you are genius

pakistan have conducted MIRV go and read what is MIRV then come back talk about useless prithvi

 

[Bossman]

Isn't pakistani nuke tech. bought from NK so why would you compare them, it's obvious NK would be better.



Meanwhile India tested nuclear capable Prithvi-II just today.

What are you smoking? Pakistan got nuke tech from NK or the other way around? The only thing Pakistan got from NK was the design for the Ghauri missile. Ghauri is now considered obsolete and replaced with much more potent missiles. BTW your Prithivi was developed from liquid fueled SA2 SAM and is a dog as it take 2 days to prepare it for launch.

 

[kris]

An indian saying what Pakistan needs or does not need is like the jackal saying what the chicken needs or does not need(the fence or the coop).



What do you think would have happened to the fat kid in the Korean peninsula if he had been this sensitive?

i am no one to judge some ones needs, pakistan developing long ranged missiles will change nothing here.

 

[The Accountant]

Pakistani leaders tend to be satisfied with very little. This is dangerous for a state like Pakistan if defence production is affected by this attitude. So far North Korea has not been touched because of her audacity to develop and display what they need for her defence. Pakistan has a lot to learn from that crisis. With a GDP of only a fraction of Pakistan's GDP they are about to have a true ICBM as a deterrent while Pakistan has been testing these missiles with one or two thousand kilometer range for ages.

I am a big favour of having icbm but it will draw unnecessary attention from western countries ...

As of now Pakistan want to prosper economically and pakistan is showing its cards when needed eg are ababeel and submarine launch cruise missile ...

Rest assured we already have capability of icbm and if needed arises it will be matter of months to test the capabilities ...

 

[LeGenD]

Pakistani leaders tend to be satisfied with very little. This is dangerous for a state like Pakistan if defence production is affected by this attitude. So far North Korea has not been touched because of her audacity to develop and display what they need for her defence. Pakistan has a lot to learn from that crisis. With a GDP of only a fraction of Pakistan's GDP they are about to have a true ICBM as a deterrent while Pakistan has been testing these missiles with one or two thousand kilometer range for ages.

North Korea doesn't have a credible ICBM capability and is no where close to achieving it. If it was that easy...

China went to great lengths to defend North Korea during the Korean War (1950 - 1953) and made sure that it won't collapse. However, this status-quo might not last forever and North Korea risks destruction with its antics; even China is becoming weary of Kim Jong-Un.

North Korea should be the last country that Pakistan should emulate.

I see little benefit of developing an ICBM under present circumstances. It is a costly venture and mass production is out of question. Conversely, interception of ICBM-class targets is now a reality, so why waste so much money on a project that might of little benefit and rather invite more trouble?

 

[The Accountant]

North Korea doesn't have a credible ICBM capability and is no where close to achieving it. If it was that easy...

China went to great lengths to defend North Korea during the Korean War (1950 - 1953) and made sure that it won't collapse. However, this status-quo might not last forever and North Korea risks destruction with its antics; even China is becoming weary of Kim Jong-Un.

North Korea should be the last country that Pakistan should emulate.

I see little benefit of developing an ICBM under present circumstances. It is a costly venture and mass production is out of question. Conversely, ICBM interception is now a reality so why waste so much money on a project that might of little benefit and rather invite more trouble?

I agree ... just one question in my mind ... if we consider our submarine fleet to be nuclear armed then what will be our ultimate range ? I mean it will be definitely missile range plus submarine range so which additional area we will be covering now ? It will be definitely a great boost as it is giving us range without getting attention ...

@Penguin sir any comment ?

 

[LeGenD]

I agree ... just one question in my mind ... if we consider our submarine fleet to be nuclear armed then what will be our ultimate range ? I mean it will be definitely missile range plus submarine range so which additional area we will be covering now ? It will be definitely a great boost as it is giving us range without getting attention ...

@Penguin sir any comment ?

It comes down to threat perception and cost-benefit analysis of any program.

Pakistan doesn't have funds to convert its existing navy into a true BLUE WATER force but it should focus on developing a seaborne deterrence of limited scale. Of-course, this is lot of work in practice.

SLBM sounds ambitious and expensive at the moment but SLCM is on the cards. A submarine that can launch a salvo of nuclear-armed cruise missiles is a fearsome weapon system in its own right and very practical for combat operations. If PAK NAVY manages to acquire a few; PERFECT.

Range of missiles can be extended with passage of time. A submarine is also a mobile platform so range is not much of an issue. Indian ocean can be covered, I suppose.

 

[T-Rex]

North Korea doesn't have a credible ICBM capability and is no where close to achieving it. If it was that easy...

China went to great lengths to defend North Korea during the Korean War (1950 - 1953) and made sure that it won't collapse. However, this status-quo might not last forever and North Korea risks destruction with its antics; even China is becoming weary of Kim Jong-Un.

North Korea should be the last country that Pakistan should emulate.

I see little benefit of developing an ICBM under present circumstances. It is a costly venture and mass production is out of question. Conversely, interception of ICBM-class targets is now a reality, so why waste so much money on a project that might of little benefit and rather invite more trouble?

Emulate means copying from top to bottom, now when did I say that Pakistan should copy everything from NK? Neither did I claim that NK has a credible ICBM, I said Nk is about to develop one and that statement of mine is based on what the US experts have been warning plus the tests conducted by NK so far. I've noticed that those who are pro US and pro monarchs of ME are always against Pakistan developing a deterrent against the US. They see no benefit in having such deterrence against the most dangerous state in the world but see plenty of benefit in being at the mercy of the US which does not hide her unquenchable thirst for a Muslim slave.

Rest assured we already have capability of icbm and if needed arises it will be matter of months to test the capabilities ...

Will you be allowed to have months for testing your ICBM when the crisis will hit the boat?

 

[The Accountant]

Emulate means copying from top to bottom, now when did say that Pakistan should copy everything from NK? Neither did I claim that NK has a credible ICBM, I said Nk is about to develop one and that statement of mine is based on what the US experts have been warning plus the tests conducted by NK so far. I've noticed that those who are pro US and pro monarchs of ME are always against Pakistan developing a deterrent against the US. They see no benefit in having such deterrence against the most dangerous state in the world but see plenty of benefit in being at the mercy of the US which does not hide her unquenchable thirst for a Muslim slave.



Will you be allowed to have months for testing your ICBM when the crisis will hit the boat?

There is no crisis in short term now ... furthermore the only out of range country which can dare to attack us is usa ... and in case we have other means to retaliate ... we have many US bases under our range and in a desperate we can go to any level ...

We simply want to proof that we are not threat to west as of now and in actual we are not but if we are pushed to the levels where west become a threat to our survival then we will suerly go for icbm ...

 

[T-Rex]

There is no crisis in short term now ... furthermore the only out of range country which can dare to attack us is usa ... and in case we have other means to retaliate ... we have many US bases under our range and in a desperate we can go to any level ...

We simply want to proof that we are not threat to west as of now and in actual we are not but if we are pushed to the levels where west become a threat to our survival then we will suerly go for icbm ...

If Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is ever attacked it will be done by that out of range country, take my word for it. This country is in record for sacrificing its own ambassador in an assassination mission don't forget that. Sacrificing a couple of military bases is nothing for them if their objectives are met.

 

[The Accountant]

If Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is ever attacked it will be done by that out of range country, take my word for it. This country is in record for sacrificing its own ambassador in an assassination mission don't forget that. Sacrificing a couple of military bases is nothing for them if their objectives are met.

brother, I completely agree with you but military strike is not the only tool available to that particular country,y, economy, financial and diplomatic sanctions are also the one ... Believe me by testing ICBMs we will make their job easy to create an alliance against us ... We need some justification to go for ICBM just like we waited for 15 years to test nuclear bombs ... As of now military is not one of weak area ... we have lot of other means to harm that particular country ... However, as of now we have to fight on economic front and for that fron ICBM testing is not good at all ...

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

brother, I completely agree with you but military strike is not the only tool available to that particular country,y, economy, financial and diplomatic sanctions are also the one ... Believe me by testing ICBMs we will make their job easy to create an alliance against us ... We need some justification to go for ICBM just like we waited for 15 years to test nuclear bombs ... As of now military is not one of weak area ... we have lot of other means to harm that particular country ... However, as of now we have to fight on economic front and for that fron ICBM testing is not good at all ...

If we can test SLCMs and have had a thermonuclear/H-bomb capability since at least 2011 then ICBMS are not even an issue for Pakistan:

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...nuclear-weapons-time-for-pakistan-to-rever/12

Truth of the matter is that Pakistan has had ICBM capability since at least 2000. There is no need to test an ICBM as the all the world's leading military analysts know we have this capability. Which is why we weren't attacked like Iraq and Afghanistan even though the American neo cons wanted to. We don't need to scare any more people or create any more enemies. The only country we need to be able to destroy, we can and they know it. That's all that is needed. The main priority now is to make Pakistan an economic powerhouse and ensure our people have the same standard of living as the Turks.

 

[LeGenD]

Emulate means copying from top to bottom, now when did I say that Pakistan should copy everything from NK? Neither did I claim that NK has a credible ICBM, I said Nk is about to develop one and that statement of mine is based on what the US experts have been warning plus the tests conducted by NK so far. I've noticed that those who are pro US and pro monarchs of ME are always against Pakistan developing a deterrent against the US. They see no benefit in having such deterrence against the most dangerous state in the world but see plenty of benefit in being at the mercy of the US which does not hide her unquenchable thirst for a Muslim slave.

North Korean ICBM program is old news and progress isn't great: https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/taepodong-2/

---

You are an advocate of extremely costly arms race that Pakistan cannot afford. Please understand that money doesn't grow on trees. My country is experiencing a significant energy crises at the moment (state-wide load-shedding is norm and domestic industries have taken a significant hit, forcing business entities to outsource some of their production and rely upon imports from China to operate/flourish) and the threat of water crises is also looming over our heads. Global warming is even a bigger menace and Pakistan is on its receiving end as well due to its geography. These are the areas where Pakistan needs to pour billions of USD to ensure its well-being (or) risk civil-war. People need water, food, shelter and energy for livelihood and invest their entire lives on these ends.

Even if Pakistan develops an ICBM, it is not in the position to mass produce this type of missile anytime soon due to economic constraints. Mass production notwithstanding, we need an ICBM of 10,000 km range with MiRV design as bear minimum to threaten US mainland (a mammoth leap from existing capabilities) and we also need to invest in relevant countermeasures for ABM-like threats (an even greater headache and strain on resources). Conversely, Americans have acquired the capability to counter ICBM-class threats and this capability will only grow with passage of time. So what are we going to achieve in the end aside from bankrupting the state in this never-ending costly arms race?

US is an economic, R&D and military powerhouse with most capable defense industry in the world and its defense budget alone is greater than the sum of defense budgets of next 5 economies combined. It is simply impractical for Pakistan to consider an arms race with the US. Disparity in resources, R&D infrastructure and economy is simply too vast.

It is practical for Pakistan to concentrate on regional/immediate threats and avoid punching above its weight.

Pakistan can leverage its relations with China and Saudi Arabia to diffuse tension with US, should friction occur. Diplomacy is a better tool to avert crises that we cannot afford.