Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for November, 2013

Is India’s nuclear arsenal safe?

Is India’s nuclear arsenal safe?

Published: September 15, 2013
 
 NUKE  SAFETY?

India’s first inter-continental missile launch. PHOTO: REUTERS

It confuses me immensely as to why the mainstream media and Western governments are constantly generating a hype about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal when they don’t seem concerned at all about the highly startling condition regarding the nuclear capabilities of India. Ever since the India-US nuclear deal has taken place, India has signed civil nuclear deals with more than half a dozen countries. Hence, the most precarious lie is advocated, that India has a strong track record of nuclear safety, to materialise these nuclear deals.

Electronic media reports lead us believe that India has a strong nuclear non-proliferation track record. On the contrary, the exceedingly alarming situation remains unnoticed. There is a largely ignored history of Indian illegal nuclear procurement, poor nuclear export controls and mismanagement of nuclear facilities. For instance, India diverted Canadian-supplied fuel for research and generating power to make nuclear weapons. But there is more to the nuclear program than meets the unsuspecting eye.

Let us look at nuclear safety first. There are numerous hazardous nuclear installations in India that could lead to a major disaster with extraordinary bearing on the lives of large populations around these facilities. According to an Australian newspaper (The Age), there is no national policy in India on nuclear and radiation safety. Despite all this, India has never made an effort to adopt world standards and best practices for nuclear safety. Radioactive waste disposal in Indian rivers is an undocumented environmental tragedy in India.

In India, nuclear facilities on coastlines are exposed to natural disasters like the monstrous tsunami of 2004. Beside the damage to the environment, there are numerous cases where workers were exposed to high radiation doses. There are 350 documented cases of radiation exposure that were reported at Tarapur, which is India’s first nuclear station.

Atomic energy and nuclear power plants, sites, institutes and agencies in India. Source: Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India

 

There are huge nuclear security issues in India because it is prone to insurgent groups and separatist rebels. According to the Daily Mail’s reports, most of India’s top nuclear facilities are located in exceedingly Naxal terrorist struck districts of India or in the “Red Corridor”. Some of the sensitive nuclear installations situated in this “Red Corridor” are, Uranium Corporation Of India Limited, Talcher Heavy Water Plant, Institute of Physics, Ceramatic Fuel Fabrication Facility, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Seha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Atomic Minerals Directorate and many more.

Around 90% of the Red Corridor areas are a ‘No Go Zones’ for the Indian troops and Air Force. The Naxal rebels are in full control and there is no writ of the Indian government in these areas.

The shocking aspect of Daily Mail’s report is that some Indian nuclear scientists are reportedly assisting Naxal rebels to learn to utilise and transport uranium. On the other hand, many of India’s missile facilities are  located in either the Red Corridor or in the areas controlled by Hindu radicals and militant organisations. There are reported cases of the abduction of nuclear scientists from these areas, which is a very disturbing situation with respect to the safety and security of nuclear weapons.

Any nuclear accident in India could have a serious impact on its neighbouring countries and hence, the insufficient safety and security measures are of great concern to Pakistan. Just imagine if a nuclear weapon fell in the hands of Indian terrorists; this could lead to an accidental nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Likewise, an accident at a nuclear power plant could release radiation that may not respect any borders.

India has to take numerous steps to ensure the safety of its nuclear program.

Michael Krepon – who is the co-founder of a Washington based think tank and has looked at South Asia for four decades – once said that, when it comes to nuclear strategy, people in Pakistan say little but act expeditiously! In India, on the other hand, people write much and act slowly.

Hence, merely talking about nuclear issues will not resolve the dilemma of nuclear insecurity for India; they will have to walk the talk. The Indian government needs to take concrete and verifiable steps to ensure the safety and security of their nukes.

 
 
Hasan Ehtisham

Hasan Ehtisham

Hasan has an MSc in Defence and Strategic studies and tweets @hasanehtishamb1 (186.42.193.242/hasanehtishamb1)

, ,

No Comments

India’s nuclear arsenal failed by ‘dud’ missiles

India’s nuclear arsenal failed by ‘dud’ missiles

By MANOJ JOSHI

PUBLISHED: 17:24 EST, 3 September 2012 | UPDATED: 17:28 EST, 3 September 2012

The most authoritative non-governmental assessment of world nuclear forces has revealed that India’s nuclear capabilities are seriously lagging behind those of its putative adversaries, Pakistan and China. 

The evaluation by Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists called ‘Indian nuclear forces, 2012’, reveals that for New Delhi, the principal means of weapons delivery remains fixed-wing aircraft like the Mirage-2000 and the Jaguar. 

Unlike Pakistan and China which have substantial deployed missile arsenals, India’s missile force is lagging, despite the test-launch of the Agni V in 2012. 

 
Only the Agni I in the Agni series of missiles has entered service

Only the Agni I in the Agni series of missiles has entered service

As the Bulletin notes, ‘the Agni I and Agni II, despite being declared operational, both have reliability issues that have delayed their full operational service’. 

The other missiles in the Agni series – the Agni III, IV and V – all remain under development.

Indeed, the report notes that ‘the bulk of the Indian ballistic missile force is comprised of three versions of Prithvi missiles, but only one of these versions, the army’s Prithvi I, has a nuclear role’. 

Considering that the lumbering Prithvi I requires hours to get ready for launch and has a range of just 150 km, it indicates that the Indian nuclear weapons capability is short-legged indeed.

Nevertheless, the Bulletin notes, the development of the Agni V has introduced ‘a new dynamic into the already complex triangular security relationship between India, Pakistan and China’. Lt Gen (retd) V.R. Raghavan, advisor with the Delhi Policy Group, does not agree with the Bulletin analysis fully.

 
Admiral Arun Prakash, Retired navy chief
Lt Gen (retd) V.R. Raghavan, Delhi Policy Group
 

Admiral Arun Prakash, Retired navy chief (left) and Lt Gen (retd) V.R. Raghavan, Delhi Policy Group

According to him, ‘The Agni I is operational and tested, and Agni II and III are almost there and all three can be used if necessary.’ According to him, the lack of authoritative information on India’s capability ‘is part of our posture of ambiguity’ on matters nuclear. But Admiral Arun Prakash, former navy chief and chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, has another view.

‘We have to rely on the word of our DRDO/DAE scientists as far as performance, reliability, accuracy and yield of missiles and nuclear warheads are concerned. Unfortunately, hyperbolic claims coupled with dissonance within the ranks of our scientists have eroded their credibility,’ he said.

As of now, according to the Bulletin, ‘we estimate that India has produced 80-100 nuclear warheads’. In the case of Pakistan, whose evaluation was done in 2011, the Bulletin analysis has said that ‘it has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear stockpile’, estimating that Pakistan ‘has 90-110 nuclear weapons’. 

The Pakistani arsenal, too, consists of mainly aircraft-dropped bombs, but with its Chinese-supplied missiles, it has a deployed arsenal of missiles like the Ghaznavi, Shaheen I and Ghauri and is developing longer-range missiles. Significantly, Pakistan’s India specific arsenal comprises of the Nasr short-range (70 km) ballistic missile, which can use nuclear weapons to take out troop formations and Pakistan is in the advanced stage of developing two cruise missiles – the Babur and the Raad.

 
nuke platforms

 

If this is dismaying for New Delhi, the comparison with China is positively alarming. Beijing has an arsenal of 240 or so warheads and it is adding to this number, though not at the pace Pakistan is.

Its nuclear weapons are primarily delivered through a mature missile arsenal with ranges from 2,000-11,000 km. A large number of Chinese missiles, including their cruise missiles, are primarily for use in nonnuclear conventional battle role. Raghavan acknowledges that ‘China is a different kettle of fish’, but he says even so, with the Agni V test, ‘India’s progress has been commendable’. 

But the really big difference between India and China arises from the fact that India’s thermonuclear weapon capability is suspect. 

A Mail Today report (August 27, 2009) had cited K. Santhanam, the DRDO scientist who ran the country’s nuclear programme at the time of the Pokhran tests, to say that the single thermonuclear test carried out at the time was a ‘fizzle’. Responsibility for this state of affairs rests with the government.

According to Admiral Prakash, ‘India’s National Command Authority (NCA) not only meets infrequently, but is loath to take decisions when it does. This has an adverse impact on decision-making, financial approvals and production-rate of missiles/warheads’.

He says that the management of our deterrent ‘by a sub-optimal troika consisting of scientists (in the driving seat), bureaucrats and soldiers’ is also a debilitating factor.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2197782/Indias-nuclear-arsenal-failed-dud-missiles.html#ixzz2lMkoyIl9 

, ,

No Comments

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons safety and security

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons safety and security
 
February 23, 2013
 

 

 
 

Since its installation, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme has been a target of harsh and subjective criticism. Although this approach has failed to cap the progressive trajectory of the programme, yet it has fashioned negative caveats about the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure. However, the deliberate maligning propaganda, especially by some Pakistani nuclear pessimists, is appalling.
Ironically, Islamabad’s transparent policy about its National Command Authority (NCA); its practical initiatives to carry out international obligations under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (UNSCR 1540) that were acclaimed by reputed international nuclear organisations; its relative openness in explaining its command and control structures that goes beyond the practice adopted by other nuclear-capable states; and its constructive participation in the two Nuclear Security Summits were purposely ignored by a few self-professed Pakistani nuclear experts in a book, entitled “Confronting the Bomb: Pakistani and Indian Scientists Speak Out”, recently published by Oxford University Press. Though the debate that these local and foreign nuclear pessimists have endeavoured to restart through this book is not new in the strategic realm, the timing is very critical.
Firstly, Pakistan’s principled stance on the core issues on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament baffled the advocates of the discriminatory global nuclear non-proliferation regime in the 21st century.
Secondly, Pakistan’s gradual modernisation and successful test of nuclear-capable delivery systems, such as Hatf IX (Nasr), have checkmated India’s gigantic military build-up and doctrinal transformation, i.e. the Cold Start doctrine.
Indeed, it is an open secret that without the nuclear weapons capability, Pakistan would be in a disadvantageous position in the strategic realm due to the increasing conventional asymmetry between India and Pakistan.
The issues that the contributors have spelled out in the book seem agenda-driven, rather than an academic or scholarly exercise. They have painted baseless scenarios and recommended impractical solutions. It appears that they are neither cognisant of the South Asian strategic environment, nor familiar with the safety and security apparatus of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Surely, it has provided the anti-Pakistan nuclear lobby in particular, and nuclear pessimists in general, an opportunity to flag and question the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
The nature of debate; the conspiracy theories hatched against Pakistan’s nuclear programme and, above all, the fear of nuclear or radiological terrorist attacks necessitate serious analysis of the subject, i.e. the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. As the book reflects the biased approach that is immensely lacking scientific research, the following discussion is an attempt to present briefly the realistic-cum-objective account of the puzzle.
Since the very beginning, Pakistan’s nuclear programme has been facing negligible internal and significant external opposition. In reality, the internal nuclear abolitionists have miserably failed to cultivate their viewpoint in the Pakistani society.
The people of Pakistan have simply rejected their judgment about the demerits or repercussions of nuclear weapons in the strategic environment of South Asia. They have vehemently supported the nuclear programme and defied the malicious propaganda unleashed to hinder Islamabad’s pursuit to acquire indigenous nuclear weapons capability.
Concurrently, the Government of Pakistan had constituted and implemented both short and long term policies to develop the country’s nuclear deterrence capability, particularly after India’s nuclear explosion in Rajasthan on May 18, 1974.
Moreover, it has been intelligently addressing the security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, there has been no recorded incident of sabotage or theft of the Pakistani nuclear material to date.
Needles to say, Pakistan has institutionalised highly-secured systems, which has been improved gradually to thwart internal and external security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure and arsenals, since the very beginning of the nuclear weapons programme.
Immediately, after the nuclear weapons test in May 1998, the Government of Pakistan announced its National Command Authority (NCA), which comprises the Employment Control Committee, the Development Control Committee and Strategic Plans Division (SPD) – the secretariat of the Authority. The periodic meetings of the NCA, and briefings organised by the SPD, reveal that a range of overt and covert measures were adopted to guard the country’s nuclear programme. A few of the explicit measures are spelled out in the following paragraphs.
First, the SPD works on behalf of the NCA, which increases its role in the nuclear decision-making. The Director General heads the SPD and is the focal person to ensure the safety and security of both the civilian and military component of the country’s nuclear programme. In addition, the separate strategic forces commands had been raised in all the three services. The services retain training, technical and administrative control over their strategic forces.
Second, the custodians of the programme had established a Security Division, which today has more than 20,000 trained personnel to guard the arsenal. These trained soldiers are far superior to the terrorists. They are capable of guarding both nuclear weapons and sensitive nuclear facilities from terrorist syndicate sabotage attempts and external powers’ incursions into the nuclear weapons locations.
Third, the NCA decided that nuclear weapons would not be stored at one place and very few people know about their locations. One can count these people on fingers who exactly know about the location of nuclear arsenals. The SPD introduced a very rigorous vetting process for the nuclear establishment, i.e. personal reliability programme for military personals and human reliability programme for the civilians to prevent insiders’ link with the terrorist groups. The officers, who are trusted with the weapons location information, ought to be under continuous surveillances by the intelligence agency, which is directly reporting to the high-ups of the secretariat. This methodology, certainly, conceals the location of the nuclear arsenals and also ensures the integrity of the employs.
Fourth, the critics of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals safety apparatus have failed to comprehend that its nukes are not maintained on a hair-trigger alert and, in times of peace, its nuclear warheads are maintained separately from their non-nuclear assemblies. This approach prevents accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.
Fifth, the SPD has developed a foolproof security system such as Permissive Action Link system, which is modelled after the one used in the US. It electronically locks the nuclear weapons. The SPD also relies on a range of other measures, including dual key system.
Sixth, Pakistan’s Parliament legislated an Act – the Export Control on Goods, Technologies, Material and Equipment Related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and their Delivery Systems Act – in September 2004. The purpose of this Act is to further strengthen control on the export of sensitive technologies, particularly those related to nuclear and biological weapons and their means of delivery.
Seventh, Pakistan established a Strategic Export Control Division (SECDIV), in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in April 2007. Its purpose is to further tighten control over exports by monitoring and implementing the Export Control Act of 2004.
Eighth, to prevent the possibility of theft and sabotage during the transportation of sensitive nuclear materials, effective measures have been instituted to fulfil international obligations under the UNSCR 1540. Side by side, it has been ensured that specialist vehicles and tamper-proof containers are provided for the transportation of nuclear materials that are escorted by military personnel.
Nevertheless, Islamabad is very actively participating in the international arrangements to prevent any nuclear or radiological terrorism. For instance, Pakistan was among the first countries that submitted a report to the UN to fulfil its obligations under the UNSCR 1540. Further, it joined the US sponsored Container Security Initiative (CSI) in March 2006 and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) in 2007.
Also, it is part of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) process – an initiative taken by President Barack Obama that has led to two successful summits in 2010 and 2012 held at Washington DC and Seoul.
Pakistan participated in the two summits and made significant contributions in supporting the global efforts towards nuclear safety and security. Former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in his speech at the Seoul Summit in March 2012, had categorically stated: “Pakistan has taken effective measures, which are the most important part of its efforts to enhance nuclear security…….We have been implementing a nuclear security action plan in cooperation with the IAEA, which reinforces physical protection of nuclear medical centres and civilian nuclear plants. Pakistan has established nuclear security training centres to act as a regional and international hub to train people.
“Pakistan had been deploying special nuclear material portals at key entry and exit points to detect, deter and prevent illicit trafficking of nuclear and radioactive materials…….Together, we have taken steps to create a secure world that will not live under the fear of nuclear terrorist attacks. We firmly believe that nuclear material must never fall into the hands of terrorists.”
Islamabad, despite its reliable nuclear safety and security arrangements, unfortunately, confronts the joint opposition of its own nationalists, who do not miss a single opportunity (even today) to criticise, malign, and desist the positive developmental trajectory of the national nuclear weapons programme. They frequently spell out negative hypothetical scenarios and recommend the ruling elite to roll-back the country’s nuclear weapon programme without taking into account India’s fatting military muscle. Ironically, they deliberately or inadvertently ignore the trends in the South Asian strategic environment.
In the same vein, there are numerous Western analysts, who are  continuously highlighting similar unfounded fears mainly to malign Pakistan. They overlook the measures that it has taken over more than one decade to ensure the safety and security of its nuclear assets.
In short, one can conclude that either these analysts have a nefarious agenda to soften the state’s defensive fence, or maybe they lack the strategic vision to understand the indispensability of nuclear weapons for the military security of Pakistan.
As a final word, the national consensus on Pakistan’s nuclear programme and the institutionalised structure of the NCA and its secretariat constituted vigilant custodians of the country’s nuclear programme. These safety and security arrangements manifest that neither terrorist networks, nor any external power is capable to seize its nuclear weapons. Hence, the physical-protection systems at the Pakistani nuclear facilities are well-built. There are custodial safeguards, and thereby these facilities are not accessible to unauthorised outsiders and under constant monitoring process.
    The writer is director and associate professor at the School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. He is also an advisor on non-proliferation at the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, London.
    Email: [email protected]

,

No Comments

US Orders Talon IV EOD Robots for Pakistan


US Orders Talon IV EOD Robots for Pa

 

North America, Waltham, Mass., is being awarded a $7,772,646 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of Talon IV vehicles, spares and training. This contract will support ForeignMilitary Sales (FMS) to Pakistan(100 percent).

The Talon IV robot provides the military’s explosive ordnance disposal technicians with a man transportable capability to remotely perform reconnaissance.

Work will be performed in Waltham, Mass. (99 percent), and Pakistan (1 percent) and is expected to be completed by December 2013. FMS funding in the amount of $7,772,646 will be obligated at the time of award, and funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

This contract was synopsized via Federal Business Opportunities as a sole source procurement authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) — only one responsible source will satisfy the needs of the agency.

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian Head, Md., is the contracting activity (N00174-13-C-0018).

 

, ,

No Comments

HOLY COW DISGUISED AS A TIGER: India’s Software Exports Figures Grossly Inflated

India’s Software Exports Figures Grossly Inflated

A 2005 study by US General Accounting Office (GAO) found that Indian government’s figures for software and technology exports to the United States were 20 times higher than the US figures for import of the same from India.

U.S. General Accounting Office looked at the 2003 data showing the United States reported $420 million in unaffiliated imports of BPT (business, professional, and technical) services from India, while India reported approximately $8.7 billion in exports of affiliated and unaffiliated BPT services to the United States.

The GAO found at least five definitional and methodological factors that contribute to the difference between U.S. and Indian data on BPT services. First, India and the United States follow different practices in accounting for the earnings of temporary Indian workers residing in the United States. Second, India defines certain services, such as software embedded on computer hardware, differently than the United States. Third, India and the United States follow different practices for counting sales by India to U.S.-owned firms located outside of the United States. The United States follows International Monetary Fund standards for each of these factors. Fourth, BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) does not report country-specific data for particular types of services due to concerns about the quality of responses it receives from firms when they allocate their affiliated imports to detailed types of services. As a result, U.S. data on BPT services include only unaffiliated imports from India, while Indian data include both affiliated and unaffiliated exports. Fifth, other differences, such as identifying all services importers, may also contribute to the data gap.

In theory, India follows what is known as BPM 6 (MSITS) reporting method for software and information-enabled technology services (ITES) which counts sales to all multinationals, earning of overseas offices, salaries of non-immigrant overseas workers as India’s exports. In practice, India violates it. BPM 6 allows the salaries of first year ofmigrant workers to be included in a country’s service exports. India continuously and cumulatively adds all the earnings of its migrants to US in its software exports. If 50,000 Indians migrate on H1B visas each year, and they each earn $50,000 a year, that’s a $2.5 billion addition to their exports each year. Cumulatively over 10 years, this would be $25 billion in exports year after year and growing.

There has neither been any acknowledgement nor any correction of the Indian government’s methodology for reporting software and IT services exports since the GAO report was published in 2005. This raises serious questions about the accuracy of India’s claims of $60 billion to $70 billion IT software and service exports being currently reported. If the 20X exaggeration still persists, the Indian IT exports could be as little as $3 billion to $4 billion today based on the US methodology.

Unlike the Reserve Bank of India’s claimed BPM 6 methodology, the State Bank of Pakistan uses a much more conservative BPM 5 reporting system which does not include sales to multinationals located in Pakistan and earning of overseas offices and salaries of non-immigrant Pakistani overseas workers in Pakistan’s exports figures. If the State Bank switched to BPM 6 method, Pakistan’s software and IT exports of $294 million for 2012-2013 could easily become at least $5 billion.

Reference

, ,

No Comments