Patriot sale to jeopardise Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia

[waraich66]

Patriot sale to jeopardise Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia
Pakistan Times Foreign Desk Report

WASHINGTON (US): India’s acquisition of the Patriot missiles system can jeopardise the existing nuclear deterrence in South Asia by tilting the strategic balance in favour of New Delhi, diplomatic observers in Washington said.

A US defence team began briefing Indian officials in New Delhi on Monday on the Patriots. In Washington’s diplomatic circles the visit is seen as a prelude to the sale of the advanced capability anti-ballistic missiles to India which can shoot down any of the Pakistani nuclear missiles.

New Delhi made its first request to the US for this defence system in November 2002 and now the Pentagon has decided to begin the sale process in what the diplomatic circles believe would bring a virtual end to the Pakistani nuclear deterrence and tilt the power balance in India’s favour, despite Pakistan’s nuclear capability.

The neutral strategists note with disbelief that President Musharraf’s closest ally and friend in the war against terror, President Bush, could be doing such a devastating thing to Pakistan. “If India gets the Patriot anti-missile defence system, where do we go, because it would be almost impossible to penetrate with the indigenous Ghauris and Hataf missiles that we have,” one analyst said.

The US team led by Edward Ross of the Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), will present a technical brief to the Indian ministries of External Affairs and Defence. Ross is second in command to General Koffler at the DSCA in the Pentagon. Indian media reports say the Pentagon team will also interact with officers of the Indian armed forces and the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) during their stay in New Delhi.

The Bush administration gave clearance for a classified technical presentation of PAC-2 system as part of the Next Step in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) agreement signed between India and the US last year. Surprisingly Pakistan has not yet raised any hue and cry in Washington about this escalation of the arms race in the sub-continent

The first indication that Washington was willing to share technical data came after Indian Ambassador to US, Ronnen Sen, flew to New Delhi last November to discuss the missile defence issue with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee. It was then that the government gave clearance to Sen to proceed further.

While the Indian defence establishment is keen to have a look at the PAC-2 system, it has its eyes on the future because this opens the way to PAC-3, the latest upgrade of the anti-missile system developed by US defence majors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

PAC-2 is a long-range, all altitude and all weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. The range of the missile is 70 km and it can climb to an altitude greater than 24 km. The minimum flight time - time needed to arm a missile - is less than three seconds and maximum flight time is just three-and-half minutes.

Patriots were first put to use by the Israelis in the first Gulf War when Iraqi missiles fired at Israel were intercepted during flight and destroyed. Ever since much advanced versions have been developed. Till date, Washington has shared this technology, updated in 1991, with key allies, including Israel, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

PAC-3 was seen in US military operation in Iraq and has a kill rate of more than 95 per cent. Neither China nor Pakistan have this type of anti-ballistic missile capability and the geo-strategic location of Pakistani missiles makes the Patriots more effective as any Pakistani missile could be intercepted in the air while in its own air space much before it could reach any major Indian city.

Pakistan defence managers have been claiming over the last few years that a level of deterrence had been achieved with the development of nuclear-capable long and short-range missiles and it was this deterrence which prevented India and Pakistan from going to war during the 8-month long armed stand off of troops during the Vajpayee Government.

They concede that lack of spare parts and non-supply of new aircraft had left the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) almost crippled with just a few F-16 fighters after most of them were cannibalized. The US has consistently refused to consider Pakistani request for new F-16 fighters, although Pakistan has been declared a Non-NATO ally and military sales have resumed to Islamabad.

These sales have so far been all on US terms and the latest goods in the pipeline worth $1.2 billion are basically 8 P-3C Orion reconnaissance aircraft which, many experts believe, Pakistan hardly needs in preference to strike capability F-16s or equivalent aircraft.

Surprisingly within India there is a strong section of defence experts who do not want to acquire the Patriot Missile System from the US.

“There are disarmament fundamentalists who object to missile defence on the basis of obsolete Kissingerian arguments that missile defence will unleash an arms race. There are self-reliance fundamentalists who assert that India can develop its own missile defence technology and therefore does not need any US inputs.

Thirdly, there are still veteran warriors who cannot forget the Enterprise mission of 1971 and so called ‘continuing’ US support to Pakistan. K Subramanyam says, “If we act on our own ancient wisdom, in this globalizing and post-Cold War world, mindful of our own national interest and security, we should exploit every opportunity to augment them.”

“India particularly needs missile defence because we have adopted a ‘’no-first-use’’ doctrine in respect of nuclear weapons. Therefore, a missile defence for our national decision-making centre and some part of our retaliatory forces would make our ‘’no-first-use’’ posture more credible. It would enhance the uncertainties of our potential adversary and act as a disincentive to his ready resort to nuclear weapons.”

Secondly, he wrote: “Pakistan is not in a position to engage in such an arms race without technological inputs from countries like China and North Korea and large-scale financial help from Saudi Arabia. In the present international strategic environment, the probability of these developments taking place is not high.”●

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

here is an old article that I had from 02 . I am sure improvements have been made but the fact remains that any thing electronic can be beat so there are no guarantees. It may give India more confidence but not to the level where they can risk a war with a nuclear armed neighbor.

'Hit to Kill' Interceptors May Be Cheap to Beat
Tricking system easy, critics say
by Jeremy Manier


The limited missile defense system that the Bush administration unveiled Tuesday will rely on homing technology costing billions of dollars--and, critics contend, still could be thwarted by countermeasures costing only pennies.

Also See:

MIT Team Tied to Questionable Missile Studies
Boston Globe 3/4/2002

Missile Defense System Won't Work
David Wright/Theodore Postol
Boston Globe 5/11/2000
Although the challenge of intercepting incoming missiles in midflight often is likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet, bullets travel slowly compared to the missiles the new system will attempt to hit at speeds of about 15,000 miles per hour.

To destroy those targets, Bush's initial system will use space-based sensors to detect missile launches, ground-based radar to track them and about 10 interceptor missiles based in Alaska. In theory, once the radar has guided an interceptor to its target, the interceptor homes in using infrared sensors and collides with the missile head-on--a strategy the military calls "hit to kill."

So far, tests of that approach have been mixed: Since 1999, three of the eight U.S. tests of "hit to kill" interceptors have failed, including the most recent failure last week.

Critics of missile defense also contend that such tests are not realistic and do not take account of some low-tech measures an enemy could take to foil the system.

For example, some experts say that if an incoming warhead released small, jack-shaped decoys made of ordinary wire, the radar in Alaska could not distinguish that chaff from the target.

"The whole system could be paralyzed by the simplest methods you can imagine," said Theodore Postol, an arms-control expert and missile defense critic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"You can build decoys weighing literally ounces, deploy hundreds or thousands of them, and the radar would be saturated," Postol said.

The military's tests have shown that in controlled situations, the "hit to kill" technique can work--an impressive feat, many experts say. And some of the tests were successful despite the deployment of countermeasures such as balloons that could have thrown off the interceptor's infrared equipment.

Still, critics say the tests have not fully simulated what a determined enemy would try to overcome a missile defense, and that is one of the program's greatest challenges.

Boosters of missile defense say one solution may be to provide a three-layered defense against incoming missiles: targeting them as they are launching, later on in midflight and during their final descent. The Alaskan interceptors announced by Bush on Tuesday would seek out warheads only in midflight.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, told the television program "Frontline" in October that he believes the decoy issue can be solved.

"It's a problem we worry about all the time," Kadish said. "That's why we're building a multilayered approach."

One way to target missiles in their final phase might be with the latest version of the Patriot anti-missile system, called PAC-3. Like the original Patriot used in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the new version would be used in metropolitan areas to hit missiles as they were nearing the ground.

The PAC-3 has been successful in fewer than half of tests performed by the Army this year. Philip Coyle, chief weapons tester at the Pentagon under President Bill Clinton, wrote last May in the publication Arms Control Today that it would be at least a decade before the PAC-3 system could be integrated into a national missile defense.

A major puzzle facing designers of the PAC-3 and the new Alaska-based system will be how to track and stop missiles tumbling end-over-end in wobbly trajectories.

Most precision warheads used by the U.S. and other nuclear powers spin like footballs as they move, making for steady, predictable paths and pinpoint accuracy. Iraq's Scud missiles don't use such spin-stabilization but rather tumble in ways that are difficult for anti-missile systems to track.

Tests of national missile defense systems have focused on spin-stabilized warheads, which some experts say are easier to identify in midflight than the tumbling warheads potential adversaries such as North Korea would be likely to use.

Postol said attacking nations could use other cheap measures to foil an anti-missile system, such as wrapping warheads in plastic bags filled with foam and radar-absorbing materials; the bag would burn up during re-entry but could fool radar during the crucial midflight phase.

Tricking the interceptor's infrared sensors with balloon decoys would be nearly as easy, Postol said.

Copyright © 2002 Chicago Tribune

 

[kidwaibhai]

dude the partriot cannot counter cruise missiles.

 

[maximus]

Not only that, the missile shield is an unreliable and costly so-called defensive mechanism only meant as a symbolic gesture. Its effectiveness is highly questionable. The missiles will always outnumber the shield. The tech itself is very immature. Not to even mention MIRV warhead which Pakistan is already working on. The shield is practically useless in such cases.

 

[koolio]

It doesnt matter if the Indians purchase the patriot system it wont make a slightest difference why since we are living right next door there are other means, as mentioned like cruise missiles our Airforce penetrating into thier airspace and dropping the Nuke.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

we need to develope strong and reliable naval and air platforms to launch cruise missiles.
we need to develop a submarine platform for our babur cruise missiles.
and then we should also develop long range high speed low altitude flying cruise missiles.

Secondly i must say that it is time to knock the Russian doors.
Secondly we must build strong millitery, economic, social and cultural ties with IRAN CHINA Bangladesh and Sirilanka.

We should setup a naval base in Sirilanka and an [airbase in Bangladesh like the Indians did in Tajikistan].

By doing atleast 70% of above targets we will develop a strategick superiority over India

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

our Airforce penetrating into thier airspace and dropping the Nuke.

There is no way our Airforce can penetrate their airspace when the patriots are around.
when dealing with airbourne aircrafts patriot has a killrate of 100%
it is the missiles for which they have a succecess rate of 70% whic gives us 30% chance to hit them.

We should focus more on the naval platfors like submarine launched cruise missiles

 

[Jihad]

Why would the U.S.A. sell these Patriots, considering Pakistan and Indias role and their stance against eachother, and also considering Pakistan as a major ally in the WoT?
They really cannot be trusted one bit, bah.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Why would the U.S.A. sell these Patriots, considering Pakistan and Indias role and their stance against eachother, and also considering Pakistan as a major ally in the WoT?
They really cannot be trusted one bit, bah.

i think they are making india a comptetor of china.
its not just Pakistan they fear from its the Chinese also .
So i guess Iran,China, Pakistan And perhaps Rusiia could sail in in the same boat .

so guys i think we will witness a moderen form of colonization perhaps.

 

[Sid]

There's no point in even having a discussion on this topic. Let India have PATRIOT ABM Systems; it will not make any difference vis-a-vis Pakistan. A Pakistani missile will only take 3-minutes to hit cities like Mumbai, Delhi, etc which is NOT enough 'reaction-time' for the PATRIOT. ABM Systems need some 'reaction-time' such as the case between Russia & U.S. where avg time between a missile-launch & a missile-strike is 25minutes.

ABM Systems are only a waste of resources in South Asia; let India go down the misery lane.

 

[ahmeddsid]

There maybe reports floating around that not a single scud was intercepted, but then where did all the scuds launched against Israel, Dammam, Riyadh go? Its true that when a Scud was intercepted, 1-2 persons on the ground might die on the ground near the intercepted trajectory. That was the only casualty Saddam could inflict.

The reaction time factor is almost same in cases of Pakistan and India, i.e similar to the Iraqi Scenario vs Saudi and Israel. Its true Pakistani Missiles are not Scuds, But they have Similarity with the N.Korean Nodong etc, and Israel has tested the ABM against Iranian type Missiles which are basically Similar to N.Korean Missiles. India is developing ABM technology with Israel too. Hence Patriots should not be discounted. Besides India already has the S300 which is on par with the Patriot. Any type of Aerial Bombardment of the Major cities is not possible with the S300 ans Patriots as they have 100% kill ratios VS Aircrafts. God Speed

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

wat abt submarine launched cruise missiles .
Are these patriots effective against these cruise missiles.

The sale of such wepons would definately give india a millitary uperhand .

Its not even in true interests of China for India aquiring such advace weponry.

 

[maximus]

we need to develope strong and reliable naval and air platforms to launch cruise missiles.
we need to develop a submarine platform for our babur cruise missiles.
and then we should also develop long range high speed low altitude flying cruise missiles.

Secondly i must say that it is time to knock the Russian doors.
Secondly we must build strong millitery, economic, social and cultural ties with IRAN CHINA Bangladesh and Sirilanka.

We should setup a naval base in Sirilanka and an [airbase in Bangladesh like the Indians did in Tajikistan].

By doing atleast 70% of above targets we will develop a strategick superiority over India

Spot on brother. Pakistan's next major capability would be the induction of SLCM/SLBM. The much awaited triad would provide Pakistan with an unprecedented security boost.

On a different note, the acquisition of a U-214 sub is all good, but we also need a stopgap measure in the short term (coming years). There is no reason why PN shouldn't have more advanced Agosta subs in its inventory that are SLCM capable. Whether we build the same Agosta subs or more improved once with French assistance is a matter of time and resources. I personally believe that the current Agosta 90B subs fitted with MESMA AIP system suffice. It's already a modern and improved sub specifically tailored to the needs of the PN. Not only do we have the know-how, but also the required manpower to produce these within a given time frame on our own soil. We need a few more subs before the U-214s are delivered.

 

[ahmeddsid]

ieueieueehahahahahhahahhahaha

ieuahahhahahhahahhahahahahahah

now every1 is trying to say the ABM system sux.

lol, deep down u know ur quaking in ur boots.

yeah, thats one attitude I think should be erased off. When ur adversary gets something good it should be acknowledged. Here on this forum many do appreciate it and thats one of the Reasons I joined in. But still there are some here who go on to say its as useful as a toothpick to shoot down a plane or missile!

 

[waraich66]

Nuke Umbrellas

by Gordon Prather

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, someone "close" to President-elect Obama told them that the Obama-Biden-Hillary administration intends to offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella."

Now, you know what an ordinary umbrella is. And if you can find it and unfurl it in time, if the rain is coming straight down out of the sky, and if you are standing directly under it, it can protect you from getting soaking wet.

Okay, what if it’s extremely windy and the rain is coming at you almost horizontal? Well, don’t bother unfurling your umbrella.

So, what’s a "nuclear umbrella"?

Presumably, it’s something that, if you can find it and unfurl it in time, and if the nukes are coming straight down out of the sky, it can protect you and yours from getting nuked in your jammies.

The Bush-Cheney administration has recently deployed in Israel an early-warning radar system, enhancing Israel’s ability to detect incoming ballistic missiles. And as a Major Non-NATO Ally, Israel has already developed – in cooperation with the United States – and deployed the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile system, specifically designed to intercept and destroy dozens of incoming medium-range missiles, particularly those launched from Iran.

Of course, as best the on-the-ground inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency can determine – after years of intrusive inspections – there is no indication that Iran has ever diverted any of those materials, required by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to be subject to a comprehensive "Safeguards" Agreement, to a military purpose.

So, if there is any country in the world that is guaranteed to not have the fissile material absolutely required to make even a crude nuke, much less a small sophisticated ballistic-missile deliverable nuke, it’s Iran.

Now, Pakistan has nukes, dozens of them, which they claim are capable of being delivered by medium-range (up to 2,000 km) ballistic missiles, upon a few minutes notice.

Recall that May 28, 1998, was a red-letter day in the Islamic world. In response to Indian nuke tests earlier that month, to everyone’s surprise, the Pakistanis successfully tested several highly-enriched uranium implosion nukes, some of them allegedly "boosted" with Tritium.

Now, virtually all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference – including Saudi Arabia, which may have bankrolled the Pakistani nuke program – view the Pakistani nukes to be "Islamic" nukes. And supported their being under the control, until recently, of Pakistan’s military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, and in the custody of his Inter Service Intelligence agency.

So did Bush-Cheney-Powell, post 9/11. In 2004 Bush-Cheney-Congress even made them a Major Non-NATO Ally (like Israel), which made Pakistan eligible for certain financial and military benefits, reportedly including a covert cooperatively-developed command, control and physical security system for Pakistan’s nuke stockpile.

Of course, the Pakistani nuke-tipped missiles don’t have sufficient range to hit Tel Aviv or Haifa.

However, the Pakistani missiles with Islamic nuke warheads do have sufficient range to hit many cities in India, largely Hindu and consequently, Pakistan’s mortal enemy.

But, so important did Bush-Cheney-Powell consider Pakistan’s cooperation in the War Against Terror then being waged in Afghanistan, they effectively prevented Israel from selling the U.S.-Israeli co-developed Arrow ABM system to India.

Israel has long been a major supplier of arms to India, second only to Russia.

* The Indian Air Force base in Agra has recently completed all preparations to receive several Phalcon airborne warning, command and control systems, installed by Israel Aircraft Industries on Russian-supplied Il-78 aircraft.
* A year ago, India put into orbit for the Israelis a Tecsar spy satellite, supposedly to better spy on Iran, but viewed in the Islamic world as "a sinister tie-up between India and Israel,"
* Several unmanned aerial vehicles, supplied (and perhaps "flown") by Israel, have recently been shot down over Pakistan.

So, it may be significant that the recent attack in Mumbai by Islamic terrorists, with the knowledge of, and perhaps even some assistance by, Pakistan’s ISI, targeted – according to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert – "Jewish institutions."

Of course, as a result of Condi-Rice’s major diplomatic "triumph" – getting the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to disregard their own rules and regulations and getting our Congress, as well as the Indian Congress, to "ratify" the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal – the IAEA-NPT-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime was effectively gutted.

All done by Bush-Cheney-Rice – without regard to the consequences – to put pressure on Iran. To get India to reject the impending Iran-Pakistan-India natural-gas Peace Pipeline and to vote "our" way on the IAEA Board of Governors, illegally requiring Iran to suspend, indefinitely, all its IAEA Safeguarded nuclear programs.

Of course, no similar nuclear deal was done for our Major Non-NATO Ally Pakistan. Nor was any thought given to the adverse impact on the lives of Pakistani civilians, as well as to the prospect of winning the War on Terror on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, of depriving Pakistan of much-needed natural gas and the expected "transit" revenues of the IPI Peace Pipeline.

It is perhaps conceivable that the recent Islamic terrorist attacks on Mumbai were in some way related to Condi-Rice’s major diplomatic "triumph."

In any case, Obama-Biden-Hillary may now allow, perhaps even encourage, the sale of the U.S.-Israeli Arrow ABM system to India.

But, back to Obama-Biden-Hillary providing a "nuclear umbrella" to Israel. Suppose the nukes are not coming straight down out of the sky? Suppose they’re being delivered by persons unknown via a slow boat from Pakistan or North Korea to Haifa, for example?

Well, maybe the Obama-Biden-Hillary "nuclear umbrella" is a misnomer.

Haaretz suggests that what will actually be offered Israel approximates the guarantee proposed by Presidential-Candidate Hillary to "respond to any Iranian nuclear strike against Israel" with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

Okay, since the IAEA can find no indication that Iranians now have – or ever had – a nuclear weapons program, Secretary of State Hillary can safely make that offer.

On the other hand, the IAEA’s repeated reports to the UN Security Council that (a) there was no indication Iraq had made significant progress on its nuclear weapons program prior to Gulf War I, (b) that the entire program had been destroyed by 1992, under their supervision, and (c) that as of February 2003, there had been no effort to reconstitute that program, didn’t prevent Bush-Cheney from invading Iraq to "prevent" a nuclear strike by Saddam Hussein against us or one of our "allies."

So, isn’t it strange that a "senior Bush administration source" reportedly now says the "nuclear umbrella" offer is "ridiculous."

"Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed?"

Who, indeed?