China’s new laser space weapons                  alarms the US: India's Concerns

 

The Real Threat 

It's important to note that the militarization of space is a contentious issue, with international treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty aiming to prevent the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space. However, the interpretation of such treaties and the development of non-WMD space weapons remain areas of debate and concern among the international community.

 China’s Space Growth is Predominantly linked to the Military Benefit First  

• China is the only country in the world, whose space department is functioning directly under the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Obviously, this has always ensured that Space assets give military spin-offs at the very inception stage of any project. China’s space programme, like its’ nuclear programme, expanded from military to civil uses. China built up its space launch capabilities on the foundations of Its Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMS) and the technology to improve their performance from the United States. Similarly, China’s manned space flight, therefore, must be seen in the context of integrated civil-military benefits. In addition, it appears to satisfy China’s central concept of comprehensive national power to compliment emergence of China as a global power. It also legitimizes the rule of the Communist party of China (CPC) in achieving milestones in Space. President Xi Jinping has also thrown his support behind the country’s space endeavors and the Chinese state media regularly cast the “space dream” as one step in the path to “national rejuvenation”.
• Since President Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, there has been greater focus on overall military capabilities and the PLA has devoted more attention to space and information capabilities. The last Chinese Defense White Paper (2019) identified space as “a critical domain of international strategic competition.” The 2019 White Paper also identified the important role that space will play in “improve [Ing] the capabilities of joint operations command to exercise reliable and efficient command over emergency responses, and to effectively accomplish urgent, tough and dangerous tasks.”
• With the goal of becoming a “world-class military power,” by 2027, as reiterated by President Xi Jinping in the recent Plenary session of the CPC. China has gone about advancing its space power, both in terms of institutional reorganization and development of space and counter space capabilities. The military modernization through better Fractionalization so undertaken by China since 2015 is worth noting. It has notably speeded up the Space launches. A particular event in space becomes useful only if it is followed up by creating an infrastructure so as to achieve both military and civil spin-offs. In terms of institutional architecture, the most significant development is the creation of the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF), a theatre command-level organization designed to combine “the PLA’s strategic space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare missions and capabilities.”  The PLASSF is an infrastructural organization to create synergies in functions that were previously dispersed across a number of departments. Under the aegis of military reforms, the PLASSF is directly under the Central Military Commission and is responsible for centralized support to the PLA. The aim as given in the ibid White paper was “seeking to achieve big development strides in key areas and accelerate the integrated development of new-type combat forces, so as to build a strong and modernized strategic support force.”. All the issues of joint support ultimately get linked to the ‘Space Dominant’ capabilities, which get generated by executing planned launches rapidly so as to create the necessary infrastructure as elucidated below.

Laser weapon in space

• To enable the above networked infrastructure, China has been conducting extensive space launches in 2018 and 2019.In 2020, in spite of the Pandemic; it carried out 34 launches (out of a planned 40) which are more than any other country. Recently they sent a mission to the Far side of the Moon. Yet again on 1 December 2020, China landed Change’s 5 Moon lander on the moon to bring home some moon rock as souvenirs and  I also completed the network of satellites for its BeiDou navigation system, as an alternative to the US GPS system. China is also working toward sending astronauts to the Moon and, eventually, Mars. It has also recently launched a re-usable ‘Space Plane’. This is a big step forward in China’s space technology as winged re-entry is really hard to do. 

China’s “Relativistic Klystron Amplifier (RKA)”                                    

• Researchers in China have developed a microwave machine “Relativistic Klystron Amplifier (RKA)”, that could jam or destroy satellites in space.

The device can generate a wave burst measuring 5-megawatts in the Ka-band, a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum increasingly used for both civil and military purposes. Although China denies the RKA is a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW), if the system were built at scale, it could send beams strong enough to rip through metallic materials moving at speed. Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) are systems that use concentrated electromagnetic energy rather than kinetic energy to damage or destroy enemy equipment and/or personnel in a physical conflict.

China’s new hypersonic arsenal

China’s new hypersonic arsenal includes the DF-17, a medium-range ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle that has a range of 1,600 kilometers. It also has the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile, which also carries a hypersonic glide vehicle. 

The US Response: Pentagon rattled by Chinese expanding arsenal on multiple fronts

• The US is alarmed and Pentagon intends to deal with the China challenge in the coming weeks from a holistic policy review on nuclear weapons, global troop basing and overall defense strategy. For now, officials are aghast at how Beijing is marshaling the resources, technology and political will to make rapid gains in space which is emerging as the new geo-political High Ground. The Biden administration is attempting to reorient all aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy. Even NATO is being given a supplementary mission to look more towards the Indo-Pacific and they are even now establishing a NATO Space Command Center.

The US secret new space weapon: Yet to be declassified

In addition the US has recently declared that very soon, it will make its secret new space weapon public. The unveiling will be a warning to other military space powers.

India’s Options

India’s DRDO Has Displayed A-SAT weapon system. This should provide some Space Deterrence against China 

• China’s growing comprehensive space power impacts on India, the most. India therefore, has no other option but to match these capabilities. However, due to a lower economic capacity, India cannot afford the same level of space activities. The answer therefore lies in India trying to create a minimum deterrence in, by India creating its own space and counter-space capabilities as a punitive measure. This could be enabled, by India acquiring niche technologies of ASAT and other non-Kinetic systems in outer space. India is already on the path of acquiring cutting edge technologies in this domain. The tri-Service integrated defence staffs (IDS) under the defence ministry have already conducted a two-day “IndSpaceEx”, with all military and scientific stakeholders in 2019. India also successfully tested an anti-satellite (A-Sat) interceptor missile to destroy the 740-kg Microsat-R satellite, at an altitude of 283-km in the low earth orbit (LEO), in a “hit-to-kill mode” under “Mission Shakti” few years back. (See photo above). Also, an Indian Tri-services Defence Space Agency is in the making before the formation of a full -fledged Space Command which is envisaged to be raised by 2025-2027.
• In addition, like the QUAD, India has to knit a coalition and partnership with likeminded nations or even explore the recent NATO ‘Open Door policy for India.’ India should also exploit the Indo-US Strategic Partnership, especially the operationalisation of ‘BECA’ etc., for maintaining an ‘Information Domination’ edge over China through a real time ‘OODA’ loop. For example, the creation of this enhanced ‘Situational Awareness’ advantage in Ladakh during the present India-China standoff really gets converted into a combat stalemate, in spite of the asymmetry between the two nations. China’s investments in Space have almost been five times more over India since the last 20 years. But because of these geostrategic partnerships at no financial costs, India is able to match the opponent and create a comprehensive deterrence against China. The credit goes to India’s smart geopolitical posturing. India’s space strategy should be to harness the available niche technologies of the U.S. and maximise closer space assets linkages rather than re-invent the systems. Towards this, the recent establishment of a ‘Situational Awareness Centre’ at Bangalore is a great milestone in management of Real time Information and its military application. This can offset China’s space superiority.
• India should also be made a partner in the existing International European Space Station. Or otherwise, India should lead by forming an Asian Space station with the help of Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Israel and even others. These kind of similar initiatives in space are urgently required to enable India in check mating China from a free run-in bull-dozing their way and seizing geopolitical and geostrategic High Grounds in Space. The Space environment will have a cascading effect on the geographical earth surface towards sovereignty and protecting the land territories of smaller nations.

 

India-China war: Can India tame technologies and nuclear strategies to enhance deterrence?

• Russia’s Ukraine offensive has more or less petered out and is now looking more like a ‘Technology-Attrition-War” (TAW). The war has prolonged much beyond expectation because Ukraine has been supported by the many states of art weapon systems from the west. The net result as on date is that the latest military technologies, both of the west and Russia have been tested and validated. But both Kiev and Bakhmuth stand free as on today. Russian conventional offensive has been done in a very friendly terrain, which lends itself to armor operations. Nevertheless this, the Russians see themselves as helpless in winning a decisive victory in spite of using revolutionary strategies and new weapons, including the hypersonic missiles. This has forced Putin to aptly play the card of nuclear weapons to deny and restrict outside intervention like that of NATO. He has all along played a quasi ‘Conventional-Nuclear Strategy’ to threaten the risk of further escalation ladder and has even threatened to abandon arms control treaties. The war is in a dangerous phase as the Bakhmuth battle continues to rage.
• Now comparing this situation in the India-China conflict scenario, the primary aspect which needs to be understood is the difference in the topography in the two war zones and the state of the military combat powers.
• If one compares the terrain as obtained along the LAC and that in Ukraine, then the stark reality stands out. Because the LAC is at 12000 feet and above heights where the rugged mountains impede mobility especially of armor. Whereas most of Ukraine is flat, with mountains found only in the west (the Carpathians) or in the south of the Crimean Peninsula (the Crimeans). The country has fertile plains, called steppes, which lend themselves to swift armor and drone operations. Now looking at the comparative combat power between the warring nations, the discussion below makes it an apt situation were running over of Indian defenses would be at a very heavy cost to the PLA and probably impossible. Let us wargame the same.

(a) There is a lot to compare here – attack aircraft, armored vehicles, surface-to-air missiles – but in general, Russia simply has more of everything. Russia has more than 15,857 armored fighting vehicles, for example, to Ukraine’s 3,309. In terms of active-duty personnel, Russia is the world’s fifth-largest military force, with 1.15 million and at least two million reserve personnel. However, Ukraine ranks 15th among world’s strongest armies in the Global Firepower index. In the 2022 ranking, actually Ukraine took only 22nd place.

(b) Whereas in the India-China context the factual situation is entirely different. The Largest Armies in the World Include China-India-The United States-North Korea-Russia in decreasing order.

(c) Looking at combat ratios between India and China, when China is in an offensive role requiring at least three times more strength. Whereas actual combat ratios of the fighting elements on the LAC are almost equal. After reorganization and downsizing of the PLA, there are approximately 70 combat divisions out of which many have been regrouped into Brigade sizes. Out of this even if half the strength of PLA is deployed in their Western Theatre it will fall short of the desired combat differential. Whereas India has the capacity to hold the Eastern front with more than 20 divisions and has also built the capability for a counter-offensive with almost two strike corps after minor adjustment of posturing from the western front (Pakistan).

• With near parity existing between the two conventional Force Levels as deployed on the Himalayas has already caused, a strategic stalemate all along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in spite of China’s military superiority. The quantum of Fire Power, which China can generate is also clearly superior. In addition, the PLA will also enjoy the benefit of the ‘First Mover’.
•  Nevertheless, all the above, yet no major breakthrough can actually result even if the PLA employs a ‘Strategy of an Active or an Offensive-Defense’ posture. Because, even if the PLA inducts an additional Army Group from the Southern/Eastern Theatre, it cannot speed up operations at these High-Altitude Heights and the treacherous undulating terrain, which negate most of PLA’S strength demanding very high combat ratios (Normally 1:6). Further, the battle of attrition along the various tiers of Indian defenses makes the defenses impregnable. Further, the PLA has already got a taste of the professionalism and determination of Indian soldiers and would not like to confront them at all. On the other hand, it will be very embarrassing for the PLA when the sturdy Indian Mountain warriors do a counter-riposte with the help of the Strike Corps and Special Forces to outmaneuver and rebuke the enemy to call off their bluff. Ipso-facto, whatever the Chinese may try, psychologically they are geared only for a gray-zone type of warfare operating not only below the’ Nuclear Threshold’ but also below the escalatory ladder of a full throttled conventional battle. This means that India’s new strategy of strategic deterrence as against the earlier ’Dissuasive Deterrence’ is paying-off. (Creation of the 17 Corps has raised this level of deterrence). In the present scenario, if at all somebody attacks, it will be China’s proxy-Pakistan. Now looking with more focus to the India-China confrontation, it clearly stands that today, China’s ‘Operational Strategy’ is more centered towards its West for projection, may be towards Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.
• Yet another important difference to the Ukraine war is that India is a nuclear power with almost 180 war heads in the arsenal. Let us see, how we can make it more potent. Can India upgrade its Nuclear Strategy to draw linkages and create thresholds for ground operational doctrines? Can the TRIAD be made more robust? Can the Second-strike philosophy be given enough redundancy to enable a residual strike, which should be sufficient to cause irreparable loss to the aggressor.? Can we theoretically talk of a first strike and management of its consequences.? Is there a need to create tiers of strategic targets to enable maximum options? How do we upgrade the near success of our nuclear strikes by adequate weapons and hypersonic missiles? These are moot questions and one is sure that they are work in progress as our fundamental nuclear strategy is dynamic, flexible and robust. 
• Latest acquisitions have added a new dimension of range and precession to Indian defenses. To name a few like IAF’s formidable “Tigersharks” squadron consisting the super-lethal Su-30MKI- INS Vikrant, BrahMos Missile, Indian Air Force (IAF), Indian Defense, Pralay Missile, swarm drones, INS Mormugao, Indian Weapon Systems, LCH Prachand, BrahMos-A weapon-platform combination has become India’s most powerful strategic asset to undertake modern operations from large, stand-off range. India is planning projects in defense and aerospace for building next-generation military equipment, which include procuring next-generation submarines and fighter jets. Some mega projects such as P75I submarines, Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) for fifth-generation fighter jets, Tejas MK2 Multirole Fighter Aircraft (MRFA), and light tank ‘Zorawar’ are in the pipeline.  India and the US are exploring the possibility of jointly developing and manufacturing a variant of the M777 ultra lightweight howitzer with an extended range, of 150 kms. This again would be a game changer along the LAC. An Indian company has delivered SWARM drones to Indian Army, which makes the Army the first major armed force in the world to operationalize these high-density SWARM drones. These state-of-the-art weapons systems when integrated in the battlefield will enable Indian defense Forces to deliver a knock out punch to any ingress coupled with the synergization of various assets as provided by friendly nations.
• In summation therefore, China/ PLA are not militarily capable of seizing Indian ground, which is an entirely different story when compared to the Ukraine conflict, which actually is a one-sided war sustained only by the efforts of the west. Obviously, a PLA offensive into India will also generate enough good will for India and the multiple joint exercises which India has done with strategic partners will repel any attack in spite of China having the first mover advantage.
• Lastly, India’s counter-riposte capabilities, which have already been displayed in the ongoing LAC conflict (Capture of South Pangong Tso Heights) will make PLA recoil or they may even lose some territory on their side when they face seasoned and well-motivated soldiers protecting their motherland.
• India is therefore well on the way to tame technologies and strengthen its nuclear TRIAD to have increased the deterrence to war, much beyond the expectations.

Download the original attachment

NPT-CTBT AND INDIA’S OPTIONS: A DISARMAMENT DILEMMA

MAJ GEN(Dr )ANIL LAL VATS(Retd)

India will have to gear up to face the challenge of the outcome of the NPT review conference scheduled at the CD in May 2010. The pressure for sighning both the NPT and thereafter the CTBT is bound to reach a critical mass beyond India’s interest. Not signing any treaty at all is no more an option today. India therefore, should either carry out minimum tests, collect independent data and simultaneously sign on the dotted lines or otherwise acquiesce and just sign and maybe collect data through goodwill or at best, by a sub-critical test

Backdrop

The recent concluded Nuclear Security Summit at Washington was attended by Heads of State of 47 countries. There was an unanimous decision concerning Nuclear Materials Safety and the risk of their falling into the hands of terrorists and the dangers thereafter.

Disarmament is a philosopher’s dream, but a soldier’s dilemma, as invariably treaties are just papers, to disarm, deceive and deny the weak. A broad historical analysis traces the roots of disarmament to Mahabharata times - and to the 6th century B.C. when the Chinese conference on disarmament was held. There is a long history of mala in se prohibitions (which are a form of qualitative arms limitation). According to book of ‘Manu’ the ancient Hindus outlawed use of barbed, poisonous and flaming projectiles which is a form of disarmament and arms control. Since then attempts have been male to outlaw crossbows - submarines - missiles and nuclear weapons. This century has seen two world wars. A pattern analysis depicts the proliferation of such treaties in the post second world war period and especially during the cold war period between 1970-1990, when more than 15 disarmament related treaties have been initiated, some of which India has been constrained to sign may be due to the interplay in the current South Asian calculus and the bellicosity of the three recalcitrant states in the region. Therefore to have a macro view of disarmament related issues it becomes imperative to analyse the dominant factors like security perceptions, in relation to deterrence, disarmament, and just wars. Even the danger of an accidental war have to be offset by confidence building measures (CBM) and such like actions.

I would like to share a few thoughts on the modus vivendi and the complexity of disarmament and deterrence. Mark Twain once observed that, “For every complex and difficult problem there is always a simple and easy solution and it is always wrong”; simple and easy solutions can seem effective temporarily, but they usually manage to leave the real problem unsolved. Disarmament falls in this category as they look simplistic but are very complex negotiations. To understand them there is a case for studying the relationship between arms control, disarmament and the strategy of defence; as treaties stimulate, ban or restrict development or deployment and may work at cross purposes to the detriment of national security. However, unilateral disarmers believe modern weapons are so dangerous that global security has supplanted national security as a requisite. Therefore nations have to decide military preparations not based on unilateralism nor militarism but a pragmatic analysis of the threat perception and the level of deterrence so required. So is India’s case.

I would also like to magnify the relationship between nuclear deterrence and arms control per se, as is relevant today in the Indian sub-continent. As a general concept, deterrence is relatively simple. Yet it becomes a complicated issue when applied to the specific situations (like in J&K) or the US strategy in Afghanistan. Deterrence depends on human perceptions, which are subject to interference from emotions like hope and fear and on their credibility and stability. A stable deterrence should become the genesis for disarmament. However this may not be the case in the Indian sub-continent. I would like to quote “when the axe is blunt and has not first been sharpened, then one must use more force”. Therefore India has no option but to be prepared and thus deal with disarmament theories appropriately. In the end, with special reference to our environment, one cannot forget what Kautilya said “Balance of Power between States should deter wars” and one can carry it forward to say that half baked disarmament treaties can only be broken as it is very difficult to predict, what kind of weapons should be controlled or limited by mutual agreement. Therefore India’s age old stand of total nuclear disarmament is actually a pragmatic and even approach to world peace. It is worth quoting the parable of the animal’s disarmament conference:

“The eagle, with an eye on the bull, suggested that all horns be razed off. The bull, with a squint at the tiger, thought that all claws should be cut short. The tiger, glaring at the elephant, was of the opinion that tusks should be pulled out or at any rate shortened. The elephant, staring at the eagle, thought it indispensable that all wings should be clipped. Whereupon the bear, with a circular glance at all his brethren, cried out: “Why all those half-way measures? Let all weapons be done away with, so that nothing remains in the way of a fraternal, all embracing hug.”

The NPT Review Conference is due in May 2010 and US has already made way for coercing nations for signing the CTBT. The disarmament debate now strikes a moral and ethical chord as well. Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a flurry of international, multilateral and bilateral agreements. The process turned into a cascade in the post Cold World period. Unfortunately, none of these have addressed the basic issues that cause war. None have succeeded in banishing nuclear weapons. The agreements are basically collateral in nature - these aspire to a nuclear weapons free world in a distant future while maintaining the hegemony of the nuclear haves for the time being.

Since 1950s, there have been efforts to limit nuclear testing and this resulted in a series of treaties like the Partial Test Ban Treaty, 1963 (PTBT) which disallowed testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater; the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 1974 (TTBT) and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, 1976 (PNET) - both these treaties between USA and USSR restricted underground nuclear tests to 150 KT yield. Consensus was then built up for a comprehensive ban resulting in the genesis of the CTBT.

Besides, it must be realised that no other nuclear weapon country has perfected the nuclear weaponisation by conducting less than at least 50 nuclear tests. If India has to have a credible nuclear deterrence, it should have at least 250 to 300 nuclear weapons ,for a two front war scenario.(If numbers do not count then why did the recent US-Russia treaty has only reduced 1/3 of deployed weapons.)and that goal cannot be achieved by foreclosing nuclear tests for all time to come. Of course, further tests could be avoided if our scientists get the required expertise and data by conducting what are called sub-critical tests. (Although its full efficacy is a debatable point). But that is an option, which should remain with India, not dictated by others.

What’s next?

The next Review Conference will meet from 4–15 May 2010 in New York. Some of the items likely to be considered for review could be: entry into force of the CTBT, commencement of negotiations of a fissile materials treaty and universalisation of the treaty; as well as the issue of signing by Annexure 2 states before the treaty enters into force. That means India and some other recent unrecognized nuclear weapon states have to sign, before the treaty enters into force. (This clause has been added to pin down India etc.)

Meanwhile, the US is going to set the stage by leading upfront and, attempt ratifying the CTBT. This then, will apply pressure on the non-signatories, (like India) both for signing the NPT and the CTBT. The dialectics of the CTBT diplomacy needs a mention here. Without doubt, Senate ratification of the CTBT is perhaps the most credible way President Obama can signal the U.S. commitment to Article VI of the NPT. Within the context of the NPT, the CTBT has been inextricably linked to both the indefinite extension of the treaty and nuclear disarmament. In 1995, the NPT was indefinitely extended as part of a package deal, which stipulated that CTBT negotiations were to be completed at the Conference on Disarmament "no later than" 1996.The 2000 NPT Review Conference named the early entry into force of the CTBT as the first of the 13 "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." U.S. CTBT ratification would legitimise international support for its wider nonproliferation goals. Failure to win ratification, on the other hand, would expose the Obama administration in undercutting the president's efforts to reinforce the nonproliferation regime. The administration faces an uphill climb to win Senate ratification. To be sure, all 58 Democratic Senators, as well as the two Independents, are expected to vote in favor of the treaty. On the other hand, given that treaty ratification requires consent from two-thirds of the Senate, if the Treaty were resubmitted to the Senate this year, at least seven Republican senators would have to be persuaded to vote in favor of the CTBT. The opposition includes certain Senators, who are rigid vocal critics of the CTBT(They had led the effort to defeat the treaty in 1999).Unfortunately, for Obama, the current Republican Whip, has considerably more influence now, than he did when the CTBT last came up for a vote.

Indian Perspective

If Obama’s effort fails then India may get a breather. From India’s current perspective of being almost marginalised in Afghanistan and that Obama calling China to play the role of stabilizer in Asia and South Asia, leads one to a very important deduction, that US will apply all possible leverage to make India sign the NPT followed by the CTBT. In fact the Indo-US treaty operationalisation process has enough leverage against India. For instance, Japan is refusing to give sensitive nuclear technology to France, who is putting nuclear energy plants in India. till India does not sign the NPT. Here it appears as if the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty is now already being applied as leverage against India, rather than India being given a special status of being considered as a de-facto nuclear state.

The proposed CTBT that the Obama administration is keen to revive and conclude is an affront to India’s sovereignty. Because, the text of the CTBT is unprecedented in an international treaty, since Article XIV of the CTBT contains a peculiar entry-into-force clause, which says that the CTBT must get the approval of 42 countries, including India, Pakistan and Israel, even though they do not believe in it. As Arundhati Ghose, India’s former permanent representative at Geneva, had once remarked,’ Which country would accept a situation after it has declared its dissatisfaction and, therefore, its decision not to sign, much less, ratify a particular treaty, finds that it is forced by other countries which accept the treaty to sign and ratify it despite being against national interest or else face unspecified measures?’ This has to be considered against the strategic backdrop of an emanating two front threat, which has not only been articulated by the Army Chief but also by the erstwhile NSA, Shri Brijesh Mishra of the BJP. If India’s nuclear weapons growth is stunted at this stage, it is bound to curtail India’s strategic autonomy in times to come.

Sovereignty of nation-states will require a re-look. It is horrifying to imagine a situation when, for instance, there will be an international treaty demanding India’s or any nations obedience on many international issues... But then, that could become a reality with the likes of the CTBT being around. The other view, of India acquiescing and signing the treaty as a goodwill measure will be a repeated error like giving 90,000 prisoners to Pakistan after the 1971 war or declaring Tibet to be a part of China in the 1950s.

India should therefore weigh options to meet national interest in the long run. May be India can take the middle course and carry out at least five to ten tests and then simultaneously sign the CTBT, followed suite by signing the NPT under a clause of including India in the cosy P-5 club, amended to read as P-5+.

In finality, the message is clear that India will have to seek its own strength by creating its own nuclear explosion data. Because, the basic fact is, that no amount of simulation can capture actual live data that emanates after a true explosion. In fact the basic data so collected, from these tests can actually assist in more realistic simulation in future , as well as depict, that India has the will to become a global power, despite all odds .Not signing, any of the two treaties is actually no option today, at all.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Maj Gen Anil Lal Vats is a former Director NBC Warfare and Fellow IDSA. He has done doctorate in Defence Studies and authored the book ‘Nuclear Strategy and Disarmament’. He is holding the Cariappa Chair of Excellence at the USI of India.