Development of Nuclear Capabilities The main dissertation of the paper seeks to answer the validity and the credibility of the issue of nuclear deterrence in the case of the conflict between India and Pakistan. It is perplexing and difficult to comprehend that these two countries are both archrivals and nuclear powers but still so far they have been able to avert a full-scale nuclear war among themselves. This creates the need to understand whether the aversion is primarily due to the concept of nuclear deterrence or are there additional forces in play. In order to understand the nature of the problem, the precise parameters of the issue and how it affects the region of the sub-continent, it is deemed imperative that a historical context should be established. India's atomic program goes over to the late 1950s and was originally initiated for peaceful purposes to be used by civilians in order to create energy. Nonetheless, when China carried out its nuclear tests in 1964, it alerted the Indian authorities as it became essential for India to take some counteractive measures to curtail the Chinese threat. The year 1964 was even more significant because just two years before, India was dealt a humiliating defeat at the hand of China in the Sino-Indian War. Therefore, India had to react in order to maintain some form of equality between its own offensive capabilities and that of China. Following the Chinese advancements, India started its own nuclear program although it was highly criticized by the International Society. In addition from the evident rationale of creating its own nuclear program, India also had to worry about the threat from Pakistan which was magnified due to the ‘anti-status quo’ alliance with China. India’s conflic... ... middle of paper ... ...ark, et al. Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia-an Assessment of Deterrence and Stability in the India-Pakistan Conflict. Diss. 2011. Appendix - Relevant Original Military Sources Works Cited by Authors Consulted A.J.C Edwards, “An introduction to the theory of Mutual Deterrence,” Seafood House Papers (1979) Shireen Mazari, Doctor, “Concept and nature of Conventional and Nuclear Deterrence,” article written for Defense Journal (2000) Saeed Ahmed Khan, “Indian’s Nuclear Doctrine: Analysis and its implications on Pakistan Security,” article written for NDC Journal (2005) Audrey, Kurth Cronin, “Cyber Mobilization: the new levee en masse,” Parameters (2006) Col. T.X. Hammes, “Fourth generation warfare evolves: Fifth merges,” article written for Military Review (2007) Kamal, Matin-ud-din, “Nuclearization of South Asia,” article written for Oxford University Press (2000)
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
After the first Hydrogen bomb was tested on November 1st 1952, many nations desired its power and a worldwide arms race for hydrogen bombs began. “August 12 [, 1953]: First test of Soviet thermonuclear device (Andrei Sakharov 's "Layer Cake") takes place.”(9). The USSR is the first to follow in the footsteps of the United States, since it was during the cold war, the USSR was basically forced to build and test a hydrogen bomb to prove their power and technological advancements. For the USSR, building this bomb had many prospects that made it very desirable, one was an increase in nationalism, and a showcase to the world of their power; possibly a fear tactic for easier imperialism, secondly: this gave them an economic boost as well as a boost to production: workers would take pride in what they did and therefore were more motivated to work hard. “NEW DELHI, May 17 [, 1998]— In a disclosure with potential to accelerate further a nuclear arms race with Pakistan, Indian scientists confirmed today that the largest of the five underground nuclear tests they conducted last week involved a hydrogen bomb”(10) India too followed in the arms race, their test came later yet “The news conference in New Delhi turned into another occasion for Indians to demonstrate soaring pride over the nuclear tests. The scientists were applauded by Indian reporters, asked for their autographs and generally treated much
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
Singer, Peter W. "War Made New: The History and Future of Technology and Warfare." The Brookings Institution. N.p., 26 Oct. 2006. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
There is a general discord among stakeholders on the definition of irregular warfare and where the term and concept fits within the joint and the individual services’ doctrine. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review report uses the term “irregular” only once in its one hundred and five pages and only in terms of a focus on building the joint force’s capability and capacity to deal with irregular warfare while maintaining a clear conventional and nuclear global superiority. Currently, the definition is ambiguous and results in conflict or duplication of efforts across Department of Defense stakeholders. For the purposes of this paper, the stakeholders discussed are the Army and the Marine Corps. Stakeholders must reach a consensus and clearly define irregular warfare in order to establish comprehensive irregular war policy and strategy.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.
This article was written to challenge the argument that people can survive a nuclear war. The authors are hoping that the audience will carry out action to prevent nuclear wars all together. An unfamiliar audience, or an audience who is mildly opposed to their views, are the type of audience that Doyle and Helfand are writing this article for. The main claim of this article is that the devastating The use of logic and motivational proofs are also successful in this argumentative article. The authors uses Dallas’s consequences of a nuclear war to strengthen their own argument.
It is plain to see the benefits of having the greatest navy integrated with the world's greatest army and air force. However, even in the wake of a relatively successful joint operation in the Middle East (Desert Storm), certain weaknesses are evident in the current joint employment tactics and capabilities. By analyzing past operations such as Urgent Fury and Desert Storm, we are able to see sufficient evidence that the Joint Warfare Concept can be disastrous in one instance and virtually flawless in another. Perhaps the biggest strength of Joint Warfare is how it appears on paper. It would be difficult to find someone to debate against combining the forces to achieve total dominance.
..., 1993). Therefore, in order for the proponent of the deterrence argument to defend his or her argument, he or she is drawn into a swamp of problems where it doesn’t seem that any clear answers can be given (Reitan, 1993).
The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.
During the Cold War, many regional conflicts occurred and were noted as the significant battles which later led to decolonization. One of the regional conflicts were India and Pakistan fighting for their independence. In 1947, India was released under Great Britain’s control and gained its independence. However, the country was divided between Muslims and Hindus, which share different religions. Muslims wanted church and state to become unified while Hindus wanted a separation of these two establishments. Since these two ethnic groups disagreed, it was difficult to create a new government. Therefore, India was divided into two nations: India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. Hindus and Muslims were racing to the border in order to get to their nation state which led to killing 500,000 people due to rioting. Although, Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian National Congressman, wanted to obtain peace between these two religions. Pakistan refused the H...
Geissmann, Hans J. 2001. “The Underrated OSCE” Working paper presented for Consultation on NATO Nuclear Policy, National Missile Defence & Alternative Security Arrangements in Ottowa, Canada. http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/Simons%20Conf%20Ottawa/Giessmann.html
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...
“India and Pakistan: Tense Neighbours.” BBC. N.p., 16 Dec. 2001. Web. 15 May 2011. .