Nuclear Weapon free World and Strategic Stability in South Asia, Pacific

The world slipped into an ideological confrontation between the Capitalist bloc led by the USA and the Socialist bloc led by USSR after the end of WW II, which in the years hence came to be known as the Cold War. Both the superpowers possessed sophisticated nuclear weapons of varied yields and delivery systems having inter-continental range. Nuclear weapons became an important part of the policy calculus of both superpowers with the establishment of sophisticated institutional infrastructure dealing with nuclear strategy, policy and planning. Nuclear weapons became military and political instruments of national policy for the superpowers. Throughout the Cold War the conflict between the US and USSR reached dangerous flashpoints that had the potential of activating a major war with the inherent probability of escalation into catastrophic nuclear war. In fact, this inherent probability of escalation induced caution and rationality in the political and military behaviour of the superpowers. In fact, had there been no nuclear weapons, the entire history of the Cold War would have been different. Nuclear weapons helped to preserve peace in a bipolar international order.

In the 21st century, there are two potential nuclear flashpoints in the Asia-Pacific region – Kashmir in South Asia and Taiwan in the Pacific.

The Kashmir dispute has played a multiplier role in enhancing the intense security competition between India and Pakistan. Pakistani policy planners have been relentlessly pursuing asymmetric war strategies to pressurise the Indian government to come to  some solution on Kashmir. As part of this strategy they make use of Islamist groups to conduct indirect probes against the Indian state such as the Parliament attack (2001) and Mumbai attack (26/11). Although India has conventional military superiority against Pakistan, the presence of nuclear weapons in the South Asian strategic matrix have prevented Indian policy planners from undertaking any military operation against Pakistan. After the Parliament attack, Indian military planners mobilised their forces all along the LOC but the nuclear factor prevented them from launching an all out military operation against Pakistan. The same calculation prevented them from undertaking any surgical operation after 26/11, irrespective of huge public opinion favouring a military response to the Mumbai attack.

Taiwan is another major international nuclear flashpoint, this time between China and America, especially in view of US support to Taiwan. Both countries possess sophisticated nuclear weapons having varied yields and delivery systems of intercontinental range. Washington has deeper commitment towards Taiwan and any aggressive Chinese posture against Taiwan may provoke a stronger American response. However, the presence of nuclear weapons has induced caution and rationality among policy makers in Washington and Beijing in their military and political behaviour. The inherent danger of conflict escalation into a major nuclear war has helped keep peace in the Pacific.

There is much talk in strategic circles about the irrelevance of war among great powers. Contemporary strategists believe that the era of big wars is over and the prime concern of military planners should be asymmetric war. They stress on restructuring forces to fight indirect wars rather than conventional wars. Although no one can deny that at present asymmetric war is a major concern of policy makers, Kashmir and Taiwan are such disputes which can revive conventional war between great powers, whose prospect is negated because of nuclear weapons.

In the final analysis, nuclear weapons have ambivalent implications for international security. They prevented a major military confrontation between US and USSR during Cold War and have helped keep the peace in South Asia and Pacific, relations limited to internecine conflict. However, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists are a nightmarish scenario for the international community. The prime concern of policy makers should be to keep nuclear weapons confined to state actors with non state actors being denied access to such dangerous devices.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).