The American targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and their development continues unabated. The latest attack is on Pakistan’s development of the Nasr missile in the Hatf short range ballistic missile (SRBM) series.
The new attack manifests itself in a provocative report published by Foreign Policy magazine, which is part of the Washington Post Company.
Badly argued and primarily conjectural, American nuclear expert Tom Hundley attacks Pakistan’s plan to develop what is known as tactical battlefield nuclear weapon in a report titled,
“Pakistan’s terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea to develop battlefield nukes” (5 September 2012).
Mr. Hundley’s report is alarmist rather than factual. As a follow up, a group of American nuclear experts landed in Islamabad this week, representing two think tanks: Stimson Center and Carnegie, in a visit designed to meet pro-US lobbyists in Pakistan to develop a narrative supportive of American policy goals with regards to Pakistani nuclear capability.
Project For Pakistan In 21st Century, an independent Islamabad-based research group, releases a policy brief titled, Why Hatf IX (Nasr) Is Essential For Pakistan’s Deterrence Posture & Doctrine.
Authored by eminent Pakistani defense and nuclear expert Dr. Shireen M. Mazari, this Policy Brief bolsters Pakistan’s policy position by explaining the rationale behind developing battlefield nuclear weapons. The arguments listed in the brief strike at the alarmism that Washington seeks to create around Pakistani nuclear plans. While attempting to explain the thinking of Pakistani policymakers, Dr. Mazari inadvertently shows the responsible and sophisticated nuclear security thinking of the Pakistani nuclear establishment.
At the same time, the Brief proposes that Pakistan offer India a Strategic Nuclear Dialogue designed to reduce nuclear risk that includes what the author describes as Confidence & Security Building Measures [CSBMs] in the nuclear area. The paper lists Pakistani nuclear risk reduction ideas shared with India over a decade without a positive Indian response, and suggests a way forward for Islamabad and New Delhi.

About the Author: Shireen M. Mazari, PhD, is a Pakistani political scientist and a prominent geostrategist, currently serving as Vice President for foreign and security affairs of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf [Pakistan Movement of Justice]. She is the former director-general of Islamabad Institute of Strategic Studies [IISS]. For information on how to reach reach, use [email protected]

Pakistan intercontinental missile underway “Taimur” Intercontinental ballistic missile

Technology to cover range of 7,000 Kms, Pakistan, to increase its defensive capabilities, has started preparing intercontinental missile with a range of 7000 kilometres.
According to sources, the intercontinental missile has a range of 7000 kilometres and is capable of hitting its target falling within its range. The missile can contain nuclear as well as traditional warheads. The missile has been termed a significant milestone for the defence of the country and is believed to strengthen the defence. According to sources, the missile would soon be test fired.

Taimur Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 7000 Km Range

The test was witnessed by Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne, Director General Strategic Plans Division Lieutenant General (Retired) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, Chairman NESCOM Mr Muhammad Irfan Burney, Commander Army Strategic Forces Command Lieutenant General Triq Nadeem Gilani, senior officers from the armed forces and scientists and engineers of strategic organizations.

Ballistic missile Nasr: A bigger threat from Pakistan

Restraint

Just how inadequate it was became apparent in the post Parliament attack confrontation between India and Pakistan, now called Op Parakram. The doctrine had not catered for the simple contingency-Indian forces being struck by nuclear weapons in Pakistani territory. It was for this reason that after the Op Parakaram was called off, the Cabinet Committee on Security met, and the press release issued thereafter constitutes the public statement of our doctrine as of now: that an attack on India or Indian forces anywhere by chemical, nuclear or biological weapons would involve a massive nuclear retaliation.

In 1993, Mumbai was struck by a series of devastating bomb blasts and, more recently, in 2008, the city faced a murderous commando raid. Not only were these some of the deadliest terrorist strikes anywhere in the world, but in both cases India quickly had detailed evidence of official Pakistani involvement, and yet it chose to do nothing.

Flowing from this, then, is the obvious question. Would India really destroy Lahore and Karachi if two of its divisions that had invaded Pakistan were subjected to tactical nuclear weapon strikes? Something tells me that we would not. Restraint is a much more enduring feature of the Indian strategic culture than our nuclear doctrine assumes.

Instability

Till now there was an assumption that Pakistan would be a nuclear weapons state like India, China, Russia or the United States had been- seeking stability at the strategic level, even while allowing some instability at a lower level. But, as Professor Shaun Gregory pointed out in an important article this March, Pakistan is not your usual nuclear state.

He noted that it differed from other nuclear weapons states in three key ways-first, it is the military and not the civilians who control its nuclear weapons. Second, it is the only such state that backs subnational terrorists and insurgents as a matter of state policy. And third, and most important, Pakistan was “a revisionist and irredentist state”. So, while other states sought nuclear weapons to maintain stability, Pakistan wanted to use them as a tool to generate instability which went against the status quo. So while states have gone out of their way to promote stability after achieving nuclear parity, Pakistan seems to be accumulating nuclear weapons at a rate which bears no relation to the programme of its sole adversary, India. Its weapons holdings have already outpaced India’s and will soon approach the level of France and UK. This, then is the challenge India faces.

Islamabad’s motive in deploying tactical nuclear weapons is not so much the strategic defence of the country, but a means of preventing India from punishing Pakistan for carrying out acts of terrorism. It already has the weapons and the reach to deter any putative use of nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, New Delhi has been strangely negligent in responding to the rapidly changing nuclear dynamics relating to Pakistan. We have been focusing on terrorism and have ignored the steadily increasing danger of Pakistani nuclear adventurism. Terrorism can kill people by the hundreds, but a nuclear strike’s consequences are something else altogether.

manoj. joshi@ mailtoday. in

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistans-short-range-ballistic-missile-nasr-is-a-matter-of-concern-for-india./0/140087.html