The Consequences of a Pakistani Sea-Based Nuclear Second Strike Capability

[MM_Haider]

The Consequences of a Pakistani Sea-Based Nuclear Second Strike Capability
What happens to South Asian nuclear stability if Pakistan operationalizes a sea-based second strike capability?

By Ankit Panda
March 15, 2015
0 Likes
0Comments
Last week, Franz-Stefan Gady provided a helpful round-up of the confusing evidence surrounding the existence of Pakistan’s sea-based second nuclear strike capability. Since 2012, when Pakistan created its Naval Strategic Force Command, there has been considerable concern, in India and elsewhere, that Pakistan is close to imminently operationalizing a sea-based second strike capability. Though analysts remain divided over the question of how far Pakistan has taken its sea-based deterrent (we know, for example, that Pakistan has neither the quantity nor quality of submarines to effectively implement this yet), it’s worth understanding the consequences of such a development on strategic stability in South Asia.

First, what we know now suggests that any Pakistani sea-based second strike capability will depend on a sea-launched variant of the Hatf-VII Babur cruise missile. The Hatf-VII, a medium-range subsonic cruise missile, tops out at a range of 700 km, meaning that a submarine-based launch system would need to operate in waters relatively close to the prospective enemy’s shores (in Pakistan’s case, India). This brings up a problem for Pakistan’s plans for a sea-based deterrent that more established nuclear powers with sea-based deterrents such as the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom haven’t faced. The credibility of a second strike capability lies in the difficult of detecting submarines carrying submarine-launch ballistic missiles. Undersea radars and other anti-submarine warfare techniques, already a major point of interest for the Indian armed forces, could undermine Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent.

Interestingly, this observation means that the actual specifications of the submarine being engineered for Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent, with the help of China, is less interesting than the actual delivery vehicle. Even if Pakistan manages to operate submarines on par with China’s Type 032 Qing-class or Type 041 Yuan-class, capable of launching longer-range land attack cruise missiles (a max range of 1,500 km), these missiles are only capable of being armed with “unitary tactical nuclear warheads,” according to globalsecurity.org – a far cry from the strategic nuclear deterrent necessary to credibly field a second strike capability. Experts note that Pakistan will need a submarine fleet comprising 14 vessels in order to keep one nuclear-armed sub on stand-by at all times. Back under Pervez Musharraf’s leadership, Pakistan planned to expand its fleet to 12 vessels.

Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term stability.

Also worth noting is that currently, nuclear escalation in South Asia is not an entirely frictionless process given India’s mostly credible No First-Use doctrine and Pakistan’s claim that it keeps its warheads separated from its launchers (even though it maintains a First-Use policy for deterrent purposes). For a conflict across the Radcliffe Line to escalate into a full-blown strategic nuclear exchange, Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA) would have to explicitly authorize nuclear use. A Pakistani sea-based deterrent would make this traditional decoupling of warheads from launchers less viable and, as a result, make nuclear first-use by Pakistan more likely. Not only will this possibility cause Indian strategic planners to lose sleep, but it would draw considerable concern from the United States and other nuclear powers.

The above reasons, in addition to the purely financial constraints Franz outlined in his piece, suggest that a sea-based second strike option for Pakistan is both a costly acquisition and one without a guarantee of giving Islamabad the upper-hand in the South Asian nuclear arms race. With India’s K-15 Sagarika, K-4, and Agni-VI SLBMs on the horizon of entering service, Islamabad will do everything it can to keep up. Additionally, a second-strike capability is important given Pakistan’s lack of strategic depth and the possibility of India modifying its NFU doctrine in the future (though I question the utility of India abandoning NFU altogether).

 

[Kompromat]

The Consequences of a Pakistani Sea-Based Nuclear Second Strike Capability
What happens to South Asian nuclear stability if Pakistan operationalizes a sea-based second strike capability?

By Ankit Panda
March 15, 2015
0 Likes
0Comments
Last week, Franz-Stefan Gady provided a helpful round-up of the confusing evidence surrounding the existence of Pakistan’s sea-based second nuclear strike capability. Since 2012, when Pakistan created its Naval Strategic Force Command, there has been considerable concern, in India and elsewhere, that Pakistan is close to imminently operationalizing a sea-based second strike capability. Though analysts remain divided over the question of how far Pakistan has taken its sea-based deterrent (we know, for example, that Pakistan has neither the quantity nor quality of submarines to effectively implement this yet), it’s worth understanding the consequences of such a development on strategic stability in South Asia.

First, what we know now suggests that any Pakistani sea-based second strike capability will depend on a sea-launched variant of the Hatf-VII Babur cruise missile. The Hatf-VII, a medium-range subsonic cruise missile, tops out at a range of 700 km, meaning that a submarine-based launch system would need to operate in waters relatively close to the prospective enemy’s shores (in Pakistan’s case, India). This brings up a problem for Pakistan’s plans for a sea-based deterrent that more established nuclear powers with sea-based deterrents such as the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom haven’t faced. The credibility of a second strike capability lies in the difficult of detecting submarines carrying submarine-launch ballistic missiles. Undersea radars and other anti-submarine warfare techniques, already a major point of interest for the Indian armed forces, could undermine Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent.

Interestingly, this observation means that the actual specifications of the submarine being engineered for Pakistan’s sea-based deterrent, with the help of China, is less interesting than the actual delivery vehicle. Even if Pakistan manages to operate submarines on par with China’s Type 032 Qing-class or Type 041 Yuan-class, capable of launching longer-range land attack cruise missiles (a max range of 1,500 km), these missiles are only capable of being armed with “unitary tactical nuclear warheads,” according to globalsecurity.org – a far cry from the strategic nuclear deterrent necessary to credibly field a second strike capability. Experts note that Pakistan will need a submarine fleet comprising 14 vessels in order to keep one nuclear-armed sub on stand-by at all times. Back under Pervez Musharraf’s leadership, Pakistan planned to expand its fleet to 12 vessels.

Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term Additionally, as Bruno Tertias noted in a thoughtful post over at the Lowy Interpreter last year, even if we generously acknowledge a credible strategic sea-based second strike capability to Pakistan, there is no reason to believe that conventional strategic stability logic would apply; i.e., sea-based second strike capabilities existing on both sides of the India-Pakistan nuclear balance would lead to better long-term stability.

Also worth noting is that currently, nuclear escalation in South Asia is not an entirely frictionless process given India’s mostly credible No First-Use doctrine and Pakistan’s claim that it keeps its warheads separated from its launchers (even though it maintains a First-Use policy for deterrent purposes). For a conflict across the Radcliffe Line to escalate into a full-blown strategic nuclear exchange, Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA) would have to explicitly authorize nuclear use. A Pakistani sea-based deterrent would make this traditional decoupling of warheads from launchers less

Pakistan has plans to build a nuclear submarine. Perhaps we can build a Type-95 class vessel with our Chinese friends and solve this issue for the long term. As the article suggests a Pakistani triad will create a balance not the other way around.

 

[Screambowl]

Pakistan has plans to build a nuclear submarine. Perhaps we can build a Type-95 class vessel with our Chinese friends and solve this issue for the long term. As the article suggests a Pakistani triad will create a balance not the other way around.

China and India are already creating balance, and if Pakistan creates, it will be unbalanced.

 

[Gufi]

China and India are already creating balance, and if Pakistan creates, it will be unbalanced.

Each country must make a balance on their own without looking at others to help them at the time of war. A balance between India and Pakistan is something that India keeps separate from the balance between India and China. Uninformed view is that there is balance kept by Pakistan and China together. Chinese forces are enough to keep a balance by your definition and Pakistan need not even worry about Indian aggression.

 

[Nine Inch Nails]

No more foreign aid.


That's for sure.


They all will stop except of course China dear.

P.S. : a question for all.

Will China like Pakistan to have sea based nuclear second strike ?

Food for thought.

Do go deeper.

 

[NKVD]

Each country must make a balance on their own without looking at others to help them at the time of war. A balance between India and Pakistan is something that India keeps separate from the balance between India and China. Uninformed view is that there is balance kept by Pakistan and China together. Chinese forces are enough to keep a balance by your definition and Pakistan need not even worry about Indian aggression.

Assumed that China will your side in war cost you many times 71, kargil

China is not sole player in southasia there other players aswell Japanese in SCS and USA In deigo garcia and phillipeans will keep check equilibrium.

 

[Gufi]

Assumed that China will your side in war cost you many times 71, kargil

That is what I said, we have to make our own balance. But 71 and now are very different, I do not think Russia would keep anyone at bay and that will free China more. Depends on how Indian relations are with China in the future. Which means is it is not as dependant as we would like thus the second strike capability from sea is needed

 

[Viper0011.]

No more foreign aid. That's for sure. They all will stop except of course China dear.
P.S. : a question for all. Will China like Pakistan to have sea based nuclear second strike ?
Food for thought. Do go deeper.

1) Can anyone deny foreign aid to India? Not with so much business connections....money talks. What's going on in Pakistan, from a business and economic standpoint is working towards taking it beyond the need for the foreign aid. 3-5 years from now, will show you how less and less this foreign aid becomes an important factor by the year. If the progress continues, a country with only 200 million population, and a growing economy with natural resources, shouldn't require much foreign aid to survive. Its been the mismanagement of money that's been causing the foreign aid to be such a big deal. Now there is actual work being done to grow the economy, a billion or two in foreign aid isn't going to be a success factor anymore.

2) No matter what you, I or anyone on here don't like, its a guaranteed step. Pakistan will build a sea based nuclear deterrent. It's a matter of their national interest. Did any type of sanctions or foreign aid stop them in 1998? Not really. You have the SAME PM sitting in the office again, now, backed up by a similar Pakistan focused Army Chief, combine the two, this is bound to happen.

3) China would absolutely want Pakistan to have the second strike capability. It's in their national interest against India. Knowing that there are two subs with second strike capability from the Pakistani side and may be a couple of unannounced ship based platforms, the IN would have to pay a lot of attention towards Pakistan, in case of a conflict with China. So its an indirect force multiplier for the Chinese.

 

[SrNair]

1) Can anyone deny foreign aid to India? Not with so much business connections....money talks. What's going on in Pakistan, from a business and economic standpoint is working towards taking it beyond the need for the foreign aid. 3-5 years from now, will show you how less and less this foreign aid becomes an important factor by the year. If the progress continues, a country with only 200 million population, and a growing economy with natural resources, shouldn't require much foreign aid to survive. Its been the mismanagement of money that's been causing the foreign aid to be such a big deal. Now there is actual work being done to grow the economy, a billion or two in foreign aid isn't going to be a success factor anymore.

2) No matter what you, I or anyone on here don't like, its a guaranteed step. Pakistan will build a sea based nuclear deterrent. It's a matter of their national interest. Did any type of sanctions or foreign aid stop them in 1998? Not really. You have the SAME PM sitting in the office again, now, backed up by a similar Pakistan focused Army Chief, combine the two, this is bound to happen.

3) China would absolutely want Pakistan to have the second strike capability. It's in their national interest against India. Knowing that there are two subs with second strike capability from the Pakistani side and may be a couple of unannounced ship based platforms, the IN would have to pay a lot of attention towards Pakistan, in case of a conflict with China. So its an indirect force multiplier for the Chinese.

I dont think the Chinese will dare for that .Entire World including India knows who give weapons to Pakistan.

Giving sea based systems would be far more provocative .And India also will look for something like that in Vetnam.In fact India is already in process for giving ships to Vietnam.
Chinese gave a lot of help to Pakistan in the past .Attempting again at current scenario will be a foreign policy disaster to China .Especially after they have already got shock treatment in Indian OceanPerhpas they will help you with sea based babur etc.Nuke subs I dont think so.

 

[Viper0011.]

I dont think the Chinese will dare for that .Entire World including India knows who give weapons to Pakistan.

Giving sea based systems would be far more provocative .And India also will look for something like that in Vetnam.In fact India is already in process for giving ships to Vietnam.

Chinese gave a lot of help to Pakistan in the past. Attempting again at current scenario will be a foreign policy disaster to China. Especially after they have already got shock treatment in Indian Ocean. Perhpas they will help you with sea based babur etc.Nuke subs I dont think so.

By the way, what's the point you are trying to make, you've added Pakistan, China, India, the US, Vietnam, the Indian Ocean , but still no concrete point or defense of your initial argument on why China won't help Pakistan with sea based deterrent. At the end, you end your argument with "I don't think so"..... and with 0 facts

See the bold above and my answers below.
1) So China won't work with Pakistan in giving a nuclear armed country, its probably the most strategic ally, sea based deterrent. But India is giving Vietnam just that

2) You think China or anyone cares for a "foreign policy disaster" aka, the war of words, statements and media shows, vs. the actual stuff that interacts indirectly or directly with their national interests? Did the same foreign policy disaster stop India from working with Afghanistan and training the same Taliban against Pakistan, it initially accused Pakistan of potentially using as "proxies"?

3) When you end an argument as "I don't think so"....you've ruined your ability to show facts. Personal thoughts don't present factual matters. Your posts have now become "gossip" for all intensive purposes.

I think Kate Upton should dump her boyfriend and marry me....but that's what "I think" aka, in my head. Not real, never going to happen

 

[SrNair]

By the way, what's the point you are trying to make, you've added Pakistan, China, India, the US, Vietnam, the Indian Ocean , but still no concrete point or defense of your initial argument on why China won't help Pakistan with sea based deterrent. At the end, you end your argument with "I don't think so"..... and with 0 facts

See the bold above and my answers below.
1) So China won't work with Pakistan in giving a nuclear armed country, its probably the most strategic ally, sea based deterrent. But India is giving Vietnam just that

2) You think China or anyone cares for a "foreign policy disaster" aka, the war of words, statements and media shows, vs. the actual stuff that interacts indirectly or directly with their national interests? Did the same foreign policy disaster stop India from working with Afghanistan and training the same Taliban against Pakistan, it initially accused Pakistan of potentially using as "proxies"?

3) When you end an argument as "I don't think so"....you've ruined your ability to show facts. Personal thoughts don't present factual matters. Your posts have now become "gossip" for all intensive purposes.

I think Kate Upton should dump her boyfriend and marry me....but that's what "I think" aka, in my head. Not real, never going to happen

Do you have comprehension problem?
Or did you read entire posts with a pinch of retard ness ?
Why should I post points in here ?Search in the PDF you can see the proof of thriving relations of India -Vietnam.

What I can see in your posts is a long cry .You cant digest when I posted the obvious fact.
Tommorrow if we give an INS Arihant with fully loaded K 15 to Vietnam .You cant be surprise .That is what I meant that giving a nuke sub to. Pakistan is too provocative.That is why I told you .' I dont think so ' .
Now if you again have burning problem then apply some burnol.

By the way, what's the point you are trying to make, you've added Pakistan, China, India, the US, Vietnam, the Indian Ocean , but still no concrete point or defense of your initial argument on why China won't help Pakistan with sea based deterrent. At the end, you end your argument with "I don't think so"..... and with 0 facts

See the bold above and my answers below.
1) So China won't work with Pakistan in giving a nuclear armed country, its probably the most strategic ally, sea based deterrent. But India is giving Vietnam just that

2) You think China or anyone cares for a "foreign policy disaster" aka, the war of words, statements and media shows, vs. the actual stuff that interacts indirectly or directly with their national interests? Did the same foreign policy disaster stop India from working with Afghanistan and training the same Taliban against Pakistan, it initially accused Pakistan of potentially using as "proxies"?

3) When you end an argument as "I don't think so"....you've ruined your ability to show facts. Personal thoughts don't present factual matters. Your posts have now become "gossip" for all intensive purposes.

I think Kate Upton should dump her boyfriend and marry me....but that's what "I think" aka, in my head. Not real, never going to happen

Do you have comprehension problem?
Or did you read entire posts with a pinch of retard ness ?
Why should I post points in here ?Search in the PDF you can see the proof of thriving relations of India -Vietnam.

What I can see in your posts is a long cry .You cant digest when I posted the obvious fact.
Tommorrow if we give an INS Arihant with fully loaded K 15 to Vietnam .You cant be surprise.Since we are not a signatory in MTCR and other stuffs .That is what I meant that giving a nuke sub to. Pakistan is too provocative.That is why I told you .' I dont think so ' .
Now if you again have burning problem then apply some burnol.

 

[Gufi]

dont think the Chinese will dare for that .Entire World including India knows who give weapons to Pakistan.

Giving sea based systems would be far more provocative .And India also will look for something like that in Vetnam.In fact India is already in process for giving ships to Vietnam.
Chinese gave a lot of help to Pakistan in the past .Attempting again at current scenario will be a foreign policy disaster to China .Especially after they have already got shock treatment in Indian OceanPerhpas they will help you with sea based babur etc.Nuke subs I dont think so.

First of all there is a misconception amongst most Indians as to the superiority of Indian scientists compared to Pakistan. But okay let us play by your rules, if China has given us all our land based weapons and helped us with cruise missiles what would stop it from giving us sea based weapons.
If the world could not prove and sanction China for giving us Shaheen 3 as you think they did, then what will make them react to sea based nuclear deterrents. The world knows our navy is not strong enough to challenge then in foreign waters and they know any weapon would be pointed at India so if they are letting us grow our nuclear stock pile and letting us get weapons from China(again this is what Indians say I do not agree but by your own logic) then they will have no problem with us getting sea based missiles either. Our submarines would not be able to reach any way near a position to threaten the west and they do not really care about the rest. If they did then why would they let China give us missiles and not sanction either country.

 

[ganesh177]

That is what I said, we have to make our own balance. But 71 and now are very different, I do not think Russia would keep anyone at bay and that will free China more. Depends on how Indian relations are with China in the future. Which means is it is not as dependant as we would like thus the second strike capability from sea is needed

Russia may not keep anyone at bay but you are forgetting USA. USA will never allow china to be a free dog in the war scenario of idnia-pakistan.

 

[Screambowl]

Each country must make a balance on their own without looking at others to help them at the time of war. A balance between India and Pakistan is something that India keeps separate from the balance between India and China. Uninformed view is that there is balance kept by Pakistan and China together. Chinese forces are enough to keep a balance by your definition and Pakistan need not even worry about Indian aggression.

That is exatly i am saying, the balance is maintained. Pakistan in case of war will definitely be assisted by china, be it logistics, recon, diplomatic support, or military. hence according to your definition. India needs to create balance with pak and chine on one side.

 

[IndoUS]

Depends, currently Pakistan's missile already cover all over India's major cities and strategic area of interest and same for India. People misunderstand Arihant, Agni 5 and other longer range missiles it is not meant for Pakistan, rather it is aimed toward China. The sheer number of nukes that both countries posses makes it close to impossible for either to completely neutralize either of nuclear capabilities, and let's not kid ourselves the ABM capabilities of either of countries are not capable enough to counter all the missile whether nukes or conventional.

So if Pakistan is planning on attacking some country far away say Israel(I am stating since the last news about Shaheen 3or 2 had Israel as a threat in it) then I can understand otherwise It is not necessary