Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Political Geography India Remove constraint Political Geography: India Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Topic Nuclear Weapons Remove constraint Topic: Nuclear Weapons
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Prakash Menon
  • Publication Date: 07-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Fletcher Security Review
  • Institution: The Fletcher School, Tufts University
  • Abstract: Technology often seduces potential adversaries through a promise of relief from security threats only to deceive through the inevitable action-reaction cycle. In the universe of security, technology is contestable both by technology itself and by doctrinal prescriptions and operational countermeasures. The advantage provided by new technology is mostly ephemeral in that provides the momentum for an endless cycle that is best described as chasing one’s own tail. Only political intervention through mutual understanding, doctrinal prudence, and regulating the search for operational supremacy holds potential to escape the stranglehold of the action-reaction cycle. The elusive search for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) is a prime example. This paper seeks to interrogate the role of the technology-security dynamics in the context of the Sino-Indian nuclear weapon relationship. ​ The context of the Sino-Indian nuclear weapon relationship is clouded by the enhancing reach of India’s missiles[1], the evolving Chinese reaction to U.S. nuclear modernization accompanied by a shift in nuclear posture, and a shared belief in the role of nuclear weapons that is signified by No First Use (NFU) doctrine. The latter point represents political intervention while the two former signify the action-reaction cycle which is primarily a product of technology. However, both China and India must contend with nuclear powers that espouse First Use. China in dealing with the United States and Russia who are quantitatively superior nuclear powers, while India deals with Pakistan whose claims of quantitative superiority are contested. ​ In technological terms, the rise of China and the U.S. reaction resulting in contemporary geopolitical flux at the global level has impacted the evolution of China’s nuclear arsenal. The most prominent illustration of this is China’s reaction to the United States’ withdrawal from the Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty. Earlier China had eschewed development of BMD, but the United States’ quest to create BMD has caused China to attempt to develop its own BMD system as well as systems that can overcome BMD like multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) and Hyper Glide Vehicles (HGVs). Similarly, India has reacted to developments in China and Pakistan by launching an indigenous BMD development program...
  • Topic: Security, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, Weapons
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, China, South Asia, India, Asia
  • Author: Muhammad Tehsin, Asif Ali, Ghulam Qumber
  • Publication Date: 01-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: South Asian Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: The protracted conflict between the US and the former USSR demonstrated that deterrence stability is improved by détente. South Asia‟s environment is characterized by mutual hostility; conventional military balance tilting in favor of India; and lack of a transparent and nonaggressive nuclear doctrine. The aforementioned factors are the missing components of détente. Both the provocative Indian expansion in its nuclear weapons programme, and Pakistani retaliatory notion of the short-range weapons option, is problematic not only in the South Asian context, but also contradictory to the decades-long experience acquired during the Cold War. Pakistan and India must move towards nuclear CBMs, doctrinal clarity, and risk-reduction measures in the light of new technological advancements, and changing US role in the region.
  • Topic: Nuclear Weapons, Territorial Disputes, Nuclear Power, Political stability, Grand Strategy, Crisis Management
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, South Asia, India, Punjab, United States of America
  • Author: Rizwan Naseer, Musarat Amin
  • Publication Date: 01-2018
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: South Asian Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: Nuclear weapons revolutionized security affairs after Hiroshima and Nagasaki annihilation. States went nuclear eventually after the United States, Russia, UK, France and China but India and Pakistan joined that exclusive club too in 1974 and 1998 respectively. Nuclear weapons a source of security motivated Israel, Iran and North Korea too. Another development that started undermining nuclear security itself was cyber warfare. Pakistan being developing country in the list of Global Innovation Index finds it hard to catch up with other leading nations in science and technology. Leading countries including US, Russia, China, UK, Germany, France etc are not safe from cyber-threats they face then how Pakistan can be considered safe against cybersabotaging to its strategic weapons. Pakistan‟s nuclear security though has gained better levels but cyber security is the field that requires comprehensive strategy to establish cyber nuclear doctrine. China being reliable strategic partner can be a resourceful partner unlike other great powers. This strategy would add much security to Pakistan‟s already existing nuclear security and would open new avenues of cooperation with international organizations to gain next milestone of Nuclear Suppliers‟ Group membership.
  • Topic: Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Nuclear Power, Cybersecurity, Internet, Grand Strategy
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, South Asia, India, Punjab
  • Author: Jon P. Dorschner
  • Publication Date: 10-2017
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: American Diplomacy
  • Institution: American Diplomacy
  • Abstract: India has long been obsessed with its rivalry with Pakistan, and for many years India viewed Pakistan as its principal security threat. Pakistan continues to support terrorist attacks directed against India and India-controlled Kashmir, and is continually increasing its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems for nuclear warheads. Despite this, Indians have come to feel more self-assured and no longer see Pakistan as the country’s principal security threat.China now occupies this position. India no longer views itself simply as the predominant regional power in South Asia, but as an aspiring world power and is gearing up for what many in India believe is an inevitable conflict with its neighbor the Peoples Republic of China. India has embarked on an outreach program to solidify friendly ties to other Asian nations that feel threatened by China, and is devoting a lot of attention to the ASEAN states (particularly Viet Nam), Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. There is increasing speculation that this relationship could develop into a formal alliance, especially if the United States becomes less active in Asia.
  • Topic: International Relations, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Regional Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, Economy, Trump, Borders
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Iran, South Asia, India, North Korea, Kashmir, United States of America
  • Author: Muhammad Ilyas Ansari, Iram Khalid
  • Publication Date: 01-2016
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: South Asian Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: This paper seeks to analyze that why some nations to nuclear in the international structure for the sake of national security when nuclear is an expensive and hard option? Due to fragile geopolitical position of Pakistan,security concerns have always forced her to find balance of power in the south Asian region through different ways. Having fought three major wars with India in 1948, 1965 and 1971 in an asymmetric military environment, Pakistan had been in disadvantageous position. War of 1971 in which Pakistan lost its Eastern wing (now Bangladesh, as an independent state) and nuclear explosion by India in 1974 forced Pakistan to follow the nuclear path. This paper analyzes the results of nuclear policy in the form of economic sanctions imposed by US and its allies, and reversal of US policy after 9/11 regarding sanctions against Pakistan. In the wake of 9/11 incident for joining the US led Global War on Terror, General Musharraf had announced that his objective was to save the nuclear and missile assets of Pakistan. This paper analyses that how Pakistani governments of General Musharraf, and Zardari from 2001 to 2013, had been under immense pressure through different coercive tactics ( from Dr. A. Q khan’s network to safety of nuclear program) to ruin the Pakistani nuclear program which had proved to prevent wars between India and Pakistan since 1999 to 2013. What costs Pakistan had to pay and what benefits Pakistan gained due to nuclear program.
  • Topic: Cold War, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, War, History, Nuclear Power, War on Terror
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, South Asia, India, Punjab, United States of America
  • Author: Jon P. Dorschner
  • Publication Date: 05-2016
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: American Diplomacy
  • Institution: American Diplomacy
  • Abstract: In 1989 I wrote an article urging the United States to stop selling weapons in South Asia.1 It took a liberal stance, arguing that such a step would enable the U.S. to occupy the moral high ground. The U.S. should not sell expensive weapons systems to some of the poorest countries on earth. The U.S. sells weapons to both India and Pakistan, which they then use in senseless wars against each other. The U.S. reduces its credibility as an honest broker by selling weapons to both protagonists, and cannot honestly mediate the Indo/Pakistan conflict. In his latest book Indian security analyst Bharat Karnad2 approaches this issue from a very different perspective. Karnad is a hardcore realist. He wants India to assume its rightful place among the world’s “great powers” and become a formidable military power. However, he sees Indian dependence on weapons systems imported from the United States and other developed nations as a drag on Indian potential. He calls for India to eschew imports and embark on a radical indigenization program to replace imported arms with those made by an expanded Indian arms industry that includes both the public and private sectors.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Weapons , Arms Trade
  • Political Geography: South Asia, India, United States of America
  • Author: Iram Khalid, Zakia Bano
  • Publication Date: 01-2015
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: South Asian Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: Pakistan detonated its nuclear test on May 28, 1998 in the Chagai hills which is along the western border of the province, Baluchistan. Many personalities and organizations were involved in developing the nuclear device against a backdrop of political, security and economic constraints, as well as opportunities. India’s 1974 nuclear explosion had proved a fundamental flashpoint for Pakistan‘s nuclear program. Pakistan decided to accomplish its vow to “eat grass or go hungry” in its mission on its advance for the nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s nuclear program evolved under immensely intricate and challenging security dilemmas and circumstances. Historical experience, a combination of cultural nuances, idiosyncrasies of personalities, and domestic politics existed throughout the nuclearization process. Pakistan faced regional crises, geographical compulsions, technical challenges, global politics, external pressure and international propaganda to nuclear materials know-how.
  • Topic: Security, Nuclear Weapons, History, Nuclear Power
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, South Asia, India, Punjab