The huge military imbalance in conventional arms between Pakistan and India could create a no-win situation for Pakistan in the event of a war, but the nuclear deterrence might bring some sanity between the two South Asian neighbours.
This analysis was put forward by Dr Jones, President of Policy Architects International, a US Virginia-based consulting firm that conducts research in international security, and Asian development and strategic issues. He was giving a presentation on 'Conventional Military Imbalance and Strategic Stability in South Asia', at the Area Study Centre for Europe, University of Karachi, on Saturday.
But he cautioned that the nuclear deterrence might not be the ultimate idea, as during Kargil misadventure India was flexing its muscles for a full-fledged conventional war. The United States and some restraint on the part of the Indian leadership only avoided the escalation in hostilities between India and Pakistan.
He said that he was not very enthusiastic about the use of nuclear energy in warfare and opined that the nuclear option should be the last resort. He reminded the audience that during the cold war era USSR and US soldiers never fired at each other. Unfortunately, it was not the case with Pakistan and India, as firing along the Line of Control (LOC) was a common feature.
Dr Jones showed the disparity between Pakistan and India through charts that gave the imbalance in the numbers between Pakistan and Indian military personnel of 1:5. The ratio of defence budget between Pakistan and India was 1:6. India increased its military expenditure after the start of Kashmir freedom struggle (he called it insurgency) in 1990 and in 2001, after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
He said that Indian defence budget was 4 percent of its GDP while Pakistan had a miniscule 1.5 percent of its GDP. There was a huge disparity in the firepower of Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Indian Air Force (IAF). India has the advantage of nearly 1:5 in the modern power structure in the form of latest and long-range strike aircraft.
He gave the warning that India could take charge of Pakistan's air space within 2-3 weeks of war, after destroying the tiny PAF. Then Pakistan's ground forces would be lame ducks for IAF. He asserted that the Chinese aircraft in use by the PAF were no match for Russian Migs.
Describing the composition of Pakistan and Indian ground forces, he said that there was a wide disparity as India has more tanks and armoured vehicles than Pakistan. He had some praise for Pakistan's Al-Khalid tanks, as the Ukrainian engine and Chinese technology had turned it into a formidable fighting machine. "In addition, Pakistan does not have Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles", he added.
He described the Pakistan Navy as a shrinking force while Indian Navy was expanding. He said that in the field of Airborne Advance Warning Aircraft (Awacs), Pakistan's ability was limited. India has Falcon type Awacs that were very effective and India was peeping into Pakistan and had an eye on the seas as well. But he praised the cost-effectiveness in Pakistan Navy.
In missile defence system, according to Dr Jones, India had made some headway while Pakistan had not even started the programme for missile defence.
Dr Jones said that such wide imbalance in favour of India disturbs the European nations, but US was mostly unconcerned. "They have their sights on China", he observed.
"India could demolish part of Pakistan after a short war and that could incite Pakistan to use its nuclear arsenal. Here the nightmare begins," he concluded.
Professor Naveed Ahmad Tahir, Director, Area Study Centre for Europe, said that the threat of nuclear holocaust to the international community was going through the cold war period. Despite the Strategic Arms Limitation agreements between USSR and US, Europe remained divided into two heavily armed camps.
"When China became nuclear power in 1964, there were apprehensions among other major powers that a further spread of nuclear weapons technology could pose graver threat to international security. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 restricted the nuclear club to the five nuclear powers who were already in possession of nuclear weapons. The NPT apparently rested on a bargain between the non-nuclear weapon states, who agreed to renounce any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear weapons powers, who undertook in return to eventually get rid of nuclear weapons, thus creating a nuclear weapons free world", Professor Naveed said.
She said: "September 11 and the ensuing war on terrorism have apparently added more complications to an already complicated scenario in South Asia. The presence of nuclear weapons in the region, it has been pointed out, is not an insurance against the outbreak of a conventional military conflict, with the possibility of turning into a nuclear showdown", she added.
Comments
Comments are closed.