CMC Homepage

 

SAND98-0505/19

January 2001

Potential Indian

Nuclear Forces Postures

Sumit Ganguly

Professor of Government and Asian Studies

University of Texas at Austin

Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper/19

 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated

by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin

Company, for the United States Department of

Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (1 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
 The Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) at Sandia National Laboratories assists political and technical

experts from around the world to acquire the technology-based tools they need to assess, design, analyze, and

implement nonproliferation, arms control, and other cooperative security measures. As part of its mission, the

CMC sponsors research on cooperative security and the role of technology. Reports of that work are provided

through the Occasional Papers series. Research is conducted by Sandia staff as well as visiting scholars. The

CMC visiting scholars program is administered by the Institute for Public Policy at the University of New

Mexico. For additional information on the programs of the CMC, visit the CMC home page on the World Wide

Web at <http://www.cmc.sandia.gov> or write to:

Cooperative Monitoring Center

Sandia National Laboratories

P.O. Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1373

For specific information on this report contact:

Kent L. Biringer at the above address.

This report was prepared by Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185 and Livermore, CA 94550

Potential Indian Nuclear Force Postures

Abstract

This occasional paper examines the structure and key features of the Indian nuclear doctrine, including strategy,

force structure, and command and control. Another section surveys the state of India’s nuclear capabilities and

delivery means, with a brief description of nuclear testing and the Prithvi and Agni missiles. The paper also

discusses the threats that India’s decision-makers perceive from Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China. 

Finally, the author describes and evaluates a variety of force structures that analysts have suggested as possible

strategic options for India. However, none of the various strategic options and architec-tures proposed by these

analysts examine the prospects of arms control, confidence building, or cooperative monitoring to ensure crisis

stability.

Acronyms

CBM confidence building measure

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (2 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
CSBM confidence and security building measure

DRDO Defence Research and Development Organization

EMP electromagnetic pulse

IAF Indian Air Force

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

IGMDP Integrated Guided Missile Development Program

kg kilogram

km kilometer

LoC Line of Control

m meters

MIRV multiple independently targeted reentry

NSAB National Security Advisory Board

PRC People’s Republic of China

SLV Space Launch Vehicle-3

SSBN Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear

Contents

1. 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................

9

2. The Draft Indian Nuclear Doctrine.............................................................................................................. 10

3. Current Capabilities: Missiles and other Means of Nuclear Weapons Delivery........ 11

4. The Perceived Threat: Pakistan.....................................................................................................................

14

5. The Perceived Threat:

China.............................................................................................................................. 15

6. Possible Force Structures................................................................................................................................

17

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (3 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
7. Assessing the Force Structures.................................................................................................................... 22

About the

Author................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Potential Indian Nuclear Force Postures

1. Introduction

On May 11 and 13, 1998, India departed from its long-standing policy of nuclear absti-nence and detonated five

nuclear devices at its test site at Pokhran in the Rajasthan desert.[1] The repercussions of the test were felt

immediately both regionally and internationally. Pakistan, India’s long-standing adversary, reacted sharply and

vowed to take appropriate steps to protect its security interests. The other regional power, the People’s Republic

of China (PRC), unequivo-cally and vociferously condemned the Indian tests.[2] The great powers, most notably

the United States, also condemned the tests and promptly moved to impose sanctions on India.[3] The United

States also sought to assuage Pakistan’s security concerns and attempted to forestall Pakistani nuclear testing. 

U.S. efforts to stop Pakistan from carrying out nuclear tests failed. On May 28 and 30, 1998, Pakistan carried

out a set of six tests in the Chagai Hills of Baluchistan. The U.S., adher-ing to legislative mandates (particularly

the Glenn Amendment), imposed a raft of sanctions on both India and Pakistan with the eventual goal of rolling

back their nuclear pro-grams.

This paper is divided into four sections. The first section examines the structure and key features of the Indian

nuclear doctrine. The second section surveys the state of India’s nuclear capabilities and delivery means. The

third section discusses the threats that Indian decision-makers perceive from their two principal adversaries,

Pakistan and the PRC. The fourth and final section describes and evaluates a number of force structures that

various analysts have proffered as possible strategic options for India.

For the purposes of analysis, this paper assumes that, for the foreseeable future, India, despite American and

other pressures to the contrary, will maintain and even develop its extant nuclear weapons and ballistic missile

capabilities. The pursuit of these goals places India on a direct collision course with stated American policy. As

presently formulated, American nonpro-liferation policy remains adamantly opposed to the further escalation and

expansion of India’s capabilities in nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.[4] The eventual disposition

of the Indian nuclear weapons program will be the result of congeries of drivers and constraints, both domestic

and external.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (4 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
2. The Draft Indian Nuclear Doctrine

In the wake of the nuclear tests, India constituted a National Security Advisory Board (NSAB). This

organization, composed of journalists, former bureaucrats, and diplomats, was given the responsibility of

drafting India’s nuclear doctrine. On August 17, 1999, this body pro-duced a draft Indian nuclear doctrine.[5]

The draft Indian nuclear doctrine provides useful clues about the possible course of weaponization in India. 

Three issues in the doctrine deserve comment. They are matters of strategy, force structure, and command and

control. The nuclear strategy that is embedded in this doctrinal statement is derived from the early canons of

American nuclear strategy,[6] which involves a concept of deterrence through the promise of retaliation and

punishment. The doctrine states that India will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with

punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.[7] To achieve this end, the doctrine calls for “sufficient, surviv-able

and operationally prepared nuclear forces,” a “robust command and control system,” “effec-tive intelligence and

early warning capabilities,” “comprehensive planning and training for operations in line with strategy,” and the

requisite “will to employ nuclear forces and weapons.”[8]

The document then discusses the requisite force structure to carry out the deterrent function. Accordingly, it

calls for a triad consisting of “aircraft, mobile land-based missiles and sea-based assets1⁄4”[9] It also seeks to

ensure the survivability of India’s nuclear forces through mobility, deception, dispersion, and the creation of

redundant systems. Simultane-ously, it visualizes the creation of sufficient assets to absorb an initial attack and

still maintain adequate retaliatory capabilities.

Finally, it devotes substantial attention to the matter of command and control. In keeping with India’s

well-established system of civilian supremacy, it locates the release authority for the use of nuclear weapons in

the person of the prime minister of India.[10] The doctrine also recognizes the need for an infrastruc-ture to

support a survivable command, control, communica-tions, intelligence, and information network.

The assumptions of the nuclear doctrine are certainly heroic. If all these projected assets and capabilities were

developed, India would have a substantial nuclear arsenal comparable in size and complexity to those of China,

France, or the United Kingdom. The acquisition of all these assets in the absence of a robust arms control regime

involving Pakistan and China could also contribute to an arms race spiral in the region and contribute to strategic

instability.

Despite its position on the matter of the first use of nuclear weapons, the doctrine is silent about the question of

arms control. Beyond a commitment to deterrence by retaliation and punishment, it makes no attempt to provide

any reassurance to Pakistan.[11] Apart from these limitations, how well does the draft doctrine conform to

India’s current nuclear and ballistic missile assets?

3. Current Capabilities: Missiles

and other Means of Nuclear Weapons

Delivery

India had evinced an interest in space research and rocketry as early as the early 1960s. The Indian ballistic

missile program, however, started in 1968 under the code name Project Devil.[12] Since 1983, under the aegis

of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), India embarked upon the Integrated Guided

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (5 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
Missile Development Program (IGMDP). The IGMDP has produced a panoply of missiles since its inception. 

They include short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles.[13] Of all the missiles that the IGMDP has

developed, two are of particular significance to this study as they are both capable of being mounted with nuclear

weapons. These two missiles are the short-range Prithvi (Earth) and the intermediate-range Agni (Fire). A good

deal of information is available in the public domain about the performance characteristics of both these missiles.

The first, the Prithvi I, has been inducted into the Indian Army. It has a range of about 150 kilometers (km) and

can carry a payload of about 1000 kilograms (kg). The Prithvi II, which is under the purview of the Indian Air

Force, has a range of 250 km and a payload of 500-750 kg. Presently, the Prithvi III, a naval version of the

missile, is under development. The accuracy of the Prithvi is the subject of some debate.[14] The principal

customer of the Prithvi is the Indian Army. As of 1999, 75 Prithvis were ordered by the army, 25 by the air

force, and 20-50 Prithvis had been inducted into the 333 Missile Group.[15] In September 2000, Minister of

Defense George Fernandes announced that the government had made a decision to produce 300 Prithvis.[16]

The other, the Agni, an intermediate-range ballistic missile, was first test-fired in May 1989. Presently, there are

two variants of the Agni and a third is under development. The basic version is a two-stage missile with the first

stage relying on the first-stage, solid-fuel booster motor of an earlier Space Launch Vehicle-3 (SLV). The

second stage of the missile is most likely a shortened version of the Prithvi. The Agni is 18 meters (m) long and

is capable of delivering a 1000kg payload. It has a closed-loop inertial guidance system based upon West

German technology. The Agni II uses solid propellant. The Agni II is also a far more accurate missile and uses a

terminal navigation and guidance system relying upon ground-based beacons. In April 1999, India successfully

test-fired the Agni II with a range of 2,000 km from a launch site in the Balasore district in the coastal state of

Orissa. It is believed that India is now attempting to develop a third version of the Agni with a range of

5,000 km.

In addition to its fitful but growing ballistic missile capabilities, India also possesses aircraft that could be used to

deliver nuclear weapons. These include the four squadrons of the Anglo-French Jaguar, two squadrons of the

French Mirage 2000H, six squadrons of Soviet MiG-27s, and three squadrons of MiG-29s.[17]

Finally, India is attempting to build a nuclear-powered submarine that should eventually be able to deliver

nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, India is developing both ballistic and cruise missile versions of a sea-based

ballistic missile, the Sagarika. Progress on the nuclear-powered submarine and the missile has been fitful. 

Various delays, bureaucratic snafus, and cost overruns have characterized these programs.[18]

3.1.1.1 Capabilities: Nuclear Weapons

India has long pursued a nuclear weapons program.[19] The program was an outgrowth of an initial civilian

nuclear power program. The timing of and the motivations for the shift to an explicit nuclear weapons program

is the subject of considerable and vigorous debate. An argu-ment that commands popularity in the American

nonproliferation community sug-gests that India pursued and eventually tested nuclear weapons primarily for

purposes of prestige, status, and domestic politics.[20] An alternative argument holds that while considerations

of pres-tige and status were present, the program’s roots can be traced to perceived and growing threats from

India’s two principal adversaries, the PRC and Pakistan. Regardless of the motivations underlying the Indian

nuclear program, India’s nuclear weapons capabilities constitute an exis-tential reality.[21] What precisely are

India’s nuclear weapons capabilities?

India first tested a nuclear explosive device at its Pokhran desert test site in the state of Rajasthan on May 18,

1974.[22] This test had a purported yield of 12 kilotons. In the wake of widespread international disapprobation

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (6 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
and the suspension of all nuclear-related assistance from Canada and the United States, India desisted from

carrying out further tests.[23] While India did not carry out further tests, it did continue work on weapons

design. According to one source, it enhanced its weapons design and fabrication facilities over the next decades,

reducing the size of the weapons and increasing their efficiency and yield through boosted fission using

tritium.[24] By the end of 1995, India’s plutonium stockpile was apparently sufficient to manufacture some 65

nuclear weapons. This stockpile was expected to increase by 2000 to be able to produce as many as 85 to 90

weapons.[25] A more recent estimate suggests that India has stockpiled enough weapons-grade plutonium to

produce 78 nuclear weapons and possesses some 60 nuclear weapons.[26]

On May 11, 1998, after a hiatus of over 20 years, India again carried out three subterra-nean tests at the Pokhran

test site. The three devices that were tested reportedly included a fission device with a yield of about 12 kilotons,

a thermonuclear device with a yield of 42 kilo-tons, and a sub-kiloton device. All three were detonated near

simultaneously. Subsequently, on May 13, India carried out two more tests that were also in the sub-kiloton

range. It should be mentioned, however, that some controversy surrounds the yield of these weapons.[27]

4. The Perceived Threat: Pakistan

Despite the significant asymmetry of forces, India perceives a military threat from Pakistan. The sources of

threat are threefold and closely intertwined. The first is the legacy of various conflicts. India has fought three

wars with Pakistan, in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971.[28] In addition to these wars, a series of crises have punctuated

Indo-Pakistani relations. In 1987, India and Pakistan nearly plunged into another war through a process of

misperception and miscalcula-tion stemming from India’s largest peacetime military exercise, “Brasstacks.”[29]

There is little question that the Brasstacks military exercise provoked Pakistani misgivings about the

possibili-ties of a surprise Indian attack in the guise of a military exercise.[30]

In 1990, India and Pakistan, despite persistent denials to the contrary from Islamabad and New Delhi, also came

close to another conflict, one with a distinctly nuclear edge.[31] The 1990 crisis arose from Pakistan’s

involvement in and India’s reaction to the outbreak of an indige-nously based insurgency in the Indian-controlled

portion of the disputed states of Jammu and Kashmir in December 1989.[32] The most recent crisis that

punctuated Indo-Pakistan relations was again in Kashmir along the Line of Control (LoC).[33] Many observers

would accept the proposition that Pakistan initiated the wars of 1947–48 and 1965 and the Kargil crisis of 1999. 

India, on the other hand, initiated the 1971 war, and was partially responsible for precipitating the Brasstacks

crisis.[34]

The second and inextricably intertwined factor is the unresolved status of the states of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Pakistan’s initial claim to Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in the Indian Union, was irredentist.[35]

India’s counterclaim was based upon the defense of its status as a secular state. Pakistan’s inability to cohere

solely on the basis of religion undermined its moral and ideological claim to Kashmir. In a similar vein, India’s

steady departure from its secular commitments has also eroded its normative claim to Kashmir. Today the two

states claim Kashmir simply on the basis of statecraft. Simply stated, states do not willingly or readily part with

territory that they deem to be theirs.

Finally, from the Indian standpoint, Pakistan has historically attempted, and continues, to draw in external

powers into the region to further its strategic goals. From the perspective of New Delhi, Pakistan played an

integral role in bringing the Cold War to the subcontinent, thereby altering the putatively natural balance of

power in the region.[36] In the 1990s, in particular, in Indian perceptions, Pakistan also became a strategic

surrogate for the PRC in South Asia.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (7 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
In the summer of 2000, Indo-Pakistani relations had probably reached their lowest ebb in decades because of

deep mutual mistrust after the Kargil conflict. The confidence and security building measures (CSBM) regime,

with the exception of the nuclear nonattack agreement of 1988, had frayed to the point of extinction.

5. The Perceived Threat: China

India, contrary to many Western assessments, perceives a historical and long-term threat from the PRC. India’s

fears of China can be traced back to the 1962 border war.[37] During the 1962 crisis, the Indian military was

subjected to various forms of political interference in the higher direction of the war. Worse still, it was

fundamentally unprepared for high-altitude warfare and lacked the requisite logistical support to conduct

operations in the Himalayas. Not surprisingly, the Indian forces suffered significant casualties. More important,

its morale was seriously damaged. As a consequence of this war, China also came to occupy some 14,000 square

miles of contested territory.

The psychological impact of this war on Indian decision makers was far-reaching and deep seated. The Indians

had not only suffered a major military debacle but feared further Chinese intransigence based upon other Chinese

territorial claims. In the aftermath of this war, India, though formally committed to a policy of nonalignment,

sought substantial military assistance from the United States.[38] When the United States did not prove to be

forthcoming, India turned to the Soviet Union for military assistance.

India also embarked upon a major domestic program of military modernization in the aftermath of this conflict. 

It sought to build a million-man army, raise ten new mountain divisions equipped for high-altitude warfare, and

equip a 45-squadron air force with supersonic aircraft.[39] During the 1960s, few improvements took place in

Sino-Indian rela-tions. Despite this growth in conventional military power, Indian civilian and military decision

makers were alarmed by China’s nuclear test in 1964. They watched with growing alarm and concern as China

continued to conduct further tests and proceeded inexorably toward full-fledged nuclear power status.[40]

In an attempt to redress this growing military asymmetry, India approached the great powers to obtain a nuclear

guarantee but had no success. The failure to obtain a nuclear guaran-tee in the mid-1960s played a vital role in

propelling India to acquire a nuclear weapons option.[41]

A fitful thaw in Sino-Indian relations took place in the 1970s with the resumption of full diplomatic relations. 

However, it was not until the late 1980s that more serious discussions resumed about the unresolved and

contentious border question. Nevertheless, at least one crisis punctuated Sino-Indian relations in 1986. This was

a major border incident at Sumdurong Chu near the Nepal-Bhutan-India trijunction.[42] In the wake of this

border conflict, after several rounds of negotiations, India and China agreed on a series of confidence building

measures (CBMs) designed to reduce the likelihood of conflict as a consequence of miscalculation, inadvertence,

and misperception along the Himalayan border.[43] Unlike in the Indo-Pakistani case, in this context both sides

have adhered to the spirit and the letter of these CBMs even though progress on the border question remained, at

best, glacial.

Sino-Indian relations again took an important plunge immediately before the India nuclear tests and especially

thereafter. Just weeks before the nuclear tests, the new Indian Minister of Defense, George Fernandes, long

known for his pro-Tibetan views, publicly referred to the PRC as “India’s enemy number one.”[44] The Chinese

were still piqued with Fernandes’ remark when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee inflamed their sentiments

further. In the wake of the nuclear tests, Prime Minister Vajpayee, in a letter to President Clinton explaining the

motivations underlying the nuclear tests, alluded to the threat that India faced from the “neighbor to the north.”

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (8 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
6. Possible Force Structures

To cope with these perceived threats, a number of Indian political commentators and strategic analysts have

discussed potential nuclear force structures for India. Five such force structures are summarized below. They

cover a wide spectrum of possible nuclear architectures and strategies. The discussion of these possible force

structures will extend from the most expansive to the most limited.

Bharat Karnad, an Indian journalist and strategic affairs commentator, has proffered the most expansive nuclear

weapons architecture for an Indian deterrent. Karnad’s preferred nuclear weapons architecture involves the

fashioning of a thermonuclear deterrent.[45] Karnad suggests that three considerations call for a thermonuclear

deterrent. First, he believes that only a thermo-nuclear deterrent can hold sufficient assets of a key adversary,

presumably China, at risk. He writes, “The threat of instant destruction on this scale will more credibly deter the

potential adversary than 200 kiloton weapons with their more limited destructive power against the same

targets.”[46] Second, he believes that the possession of a thermonuclear deterrent will enable India to achieve

“escalation dominance” against China in a future crisis, namely the capacity to con-tend with China at all levels

of the nuclear escalation ladder. Third, he believes that given the far greater destructive power of thermonuclear

weapons, they would be under better control than a limited nuclear weapons capability.

These arguments lead Karnad to call for the creation of a force structure with at least 300 nuclear weapons over a

30-year time span. This force would be triadic and include nuclear-capable long-range aircraft,

intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballis-tic missiles.

Both his analysis and his prescriptions are quite problematic. First, his contention that only a thermonuclear

force would constitute a sufficient deterrent against China is questionable. There is little reason to believe that an

adequate number of survivable nuclear weapons would not hold key Chinese assets at risk. Second, he fails to

postulate or even suggest the kind of crisis in Sino-Indian relations that would call for India to achieve

“escalation dominance.” As argued earlier, the Sino-Indian relationship, though fraught with many problems,

lacks the strate-gic ballast to precipitate a crisis where India would find it necessary to successfully deter the

Chinese at all levels of escalation. His contention that “escalation dominance” is critical to a robust deterrent

strategy simply reflects an uncritical acceptance of the postulates and assump-tions of a particular school of

nuclear deterrence. This school, associated with nuclear warfight-ing, assumes that to effect robust deterrence,

states have to possess capabilities to meet the challenges of nuclear-armed adversaries at all possible levels.[47]

Third, now that India possesses nuclear weapons, it will have to forthrightly address the “usability paradox,”

namely that its weapons will be under such firm control that they will be used when so directed but also not

subject to unauthorized use.[48] India does not need to pursue a thermonuclear option to ensure ade-quate

control over its nuclear assets. Fourth, his analysis provides little or no discussion of what critical Chinese assets

India could effectively threaten with the force architecture that he visualizes for deterring Chinese malfeasance. 

Fifth, his analysis elides the likely Pakistani misgivings about India’s acquisition of this large, powerful nuclear

force. He appears to believe that this force configuration with the requisite capability to roundly threaten China

would not provoke Pakistani anxieties.[49] There is no logical or substantive reason in the absence of an

extensive arms control and confidence building measures regime to make this assumption. As Neil Joeck argues,

drawing on the work of Sir Michael Howard, deterrent strategies do little to reassure adversaries.[50] Sixth and

finally, he ignores the reactions that India’s unilateral pursuit of a triadic thermonuclear force would have on

Chinese nuclear force struc-tures.[51] The expansion of Chinese nuclear capabilities, in turn, would have

adverse conse-quences for American force planning and thereby have spiraling consequences for the existing

global nuclear gyre.

A retired Indian army officer and strategic commentator, Vijai K. Nair, has also con-structed an almost equally

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (9 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
expansive concept of a potential Indian force structure.[52] There are, however, important substantive and

organizational differences between his analysis and that of Karnad. Nair provides a detailed discussion of the

requirements for deterring both Pakistan and China. He believes that to adequately deter these two adversaries,

India must have a secure second-strike capability. In practical terms, this would entail “degrading that country’s

capabil-ity of continuing as a socioeconomic entity.”[53] In the case of China, India would need to have

sufficient capabilities to put at risk five or six major industrial centers and two ports that are designed to service

China’s nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet. To accomplish these ends, Nair calculates that India

would need an aggregate number of 132 nuclear weapons. These weapons, to maximize survivability, would

have to be dispersed amongst nuclear–capable submarines, intermediate-range, land-based ballistic missiles, and

manned aircraft. Finally, Nair provides a general discussion of the significance of command and control of

nuclear forces. He also provides some guidelines for the creation of robust capabilities to prevent unauthorized

and inadvertent usage.

Nair’s prospective nuclear force is actually quite close to the theoretical requirements that have been spelled out

in the draft Indian nuclear doctrine. However, India is still a considerable distance away from being able to

fulfill these requirements. As argued earlier, India is well over a decade away from being able to deploy a

nuclear-capable submarine. Also, its intermediate-range ballistic missiles are still in an incipient stage of

development. All it does possess are long-range, nuclear-capable aircraft.[54] Even these would have to be

suitably modified to be able to deliver gravity-released nuclear weapons. Nair’s conceptualized force may

indeed be the direc-tion that India eventually hopes to achieve. Its current capabilities, however, fall

considerably short of this proposed design.

K. Subrahmanyam, India’s preeminent strategic analyst, has provided a more limited concept of a possible

nuclear force structure for India. Subrahmanyam’s case for a minimum deterrent was made before India’s Shakti

tests of May 1998.[55] His analysis nevertheless remains relevant for the present strategic context in South

Asia. At the outset, Subrahmanyam eschews any interest in the development of warfighting capabilities for

India. He contends that the threats that India faces from China and Pakistan rule out the need to develop

warfighting capabilities. To be able to deter the Pakistanis or the Chinese from subjecting India to nuclear

coercion, Subrahmanyam argues that all India needs is adequate retaliatory capabilities. Such capabilities, in his

view, can be contained within the realm of a finite deterrent force. To this end he posits that India needs to

acquire around 60 deliverable warheads eventually distributed across four different weapons systems.[56]

Unlike Nair, however, Subrahmanyam does not specify the likely targets that these 60 warheads would hold at

risk. Subrahmanyam also argues that a finite force, such as the one he proposes, need not have elaborate

command and control procedures. He does concede, however, that:

“1⁄4even the countries that envisage only a minimum deterrent strategy, no-first-use and no high figure multiple

weapon exchanges, will have to take steps to ensure succession in regard to legitimate authority to order the use

of weapons, the command linkages between supreme civilian authority and the Service chiefs and down to units

which are able to deliver retaliatory strike.”[57]

General Krishnaswami Sundarji, a former Indian chief of army staff, echoed Subrahman-yam’s interest in a

minimum deterrent strategy in a chapter that he contributed before his untimely death. Sundarji, like

Subrahmanyam, also eschewed any need for India to pursue a more expansive nuclear posture. He also

contended that as long as India had assured second-strike capabilities there was little need for a more complex

nuclear striking force. Writing in 1996, he visualized a three-stage development of a viable nuclear force

structure for India.[58] In the initial phase, he envisaged a force solely reliant on nuclear-capable aircraft. In the

second phase, nuclear-capable aircraft would be augmented with the deployment of nuclear-tipped Prithvis. In

the final phase, the force would be composed of the Agni II, the Agni I, the Prithvi, and various nuclear-capable

aircraft. Sundarji, however, did not specify the size of this potential nuclear force, nor did he provide a

discussion of the likely targeting policy that India would have to employ to achieve a level of “unacceptable

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (10 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
damage.” Finally, he devoted a short section underscoring the significance of the command and control of

nuclear weapons and the need to develop a National Command Authority.

Few Indian naval planners have contributed to the nuclear debate within India.[59] An important exception is a

recent, comprehensive work by retired Rear Admiral Raja Menon.[60] Menon initially summarizes the key

developments and epochs in the development of American nuclear strategy and then provides an account of the

evolution of India’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. He then assesses the state of India’s ballistic and

nuclear weapons programs. In turn, he discusses the present and future threats that India faces from Pakistan and

the PRC. These threats, he contends, can best be met through the eventual Indian acquisition of a

subma-rine-based nuclear force composed of at least six nuclear submarines. Each submarine would carry

twelve missiles. If equipped with multiple independent targeted reentry vehicles (MIRVs), these could carry as

many as 96 warheads. At any given moment, at least two of these submarines would be on patrol. He contends

that a submarine-based force would be the least vulnerable and satisfy India’s need for a second-strike retaliatory

capability. Until India acquires this submarine-based force structure, he suggests that the country rely on a

mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force based upon a modification of existing railway grids.[61]

Menon also provides an extensive discussion of the necessary steps that India will have to undertake to develop a

robust command and control system. To his credit, he addresses both the organizational and the technological

dimensions of this vital issue. Finally, Menon, unlike many of his counterparts, provides an extensive discussion

of possible and desirable arms control and CBMs that could be implemented between India, Pakistan, and China

to reduce the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and inadvertent escalation. These include both

declaratory state-ments as well as various technological steps such as the exchange of doctrinal information, the

adoption of similar alert status for missiles, the joint development of permissive action links, and the electronic

tagging of missiles.[62]

Menon’s sensitivity toward questions of arms control and strategic stability constitute an important first step in

the discussion of possible nuclear force postures for India. There are two important drawbacks to Menon’s

analysis. First, as he himself recognizes, India’s ability in the face of various existing sanctions to manufacture a

submarine-based force is still quite uncertain. Second, Menon fails to appreciate the existing

bureaucratic-technological-scientific momentum that India’s existing missile programs have already gathered. 

How will this course be reversed? Why would the bureaucrats, scientists, and policy-planners who have invested

significant efforts in the development of the existing land-based ballistic missile program shift direction and

willingly acquiesce in its termination?

A final discussion of force structure exists in a recent chapter by a senior retired Indian Air Force (IAF) officer,

Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak. He too calls for the development of a finite deterrent capacity solely for the

purposes of retaliation based upon a relatively invulnerable submarine-based force.[63] Until India can build a

sea-based retaliatory capability he contends that it should aim to create a dyadic force based upon land-based

missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft. He also suggests that for India, a force of about 100 nuclear warheads

should suffice. Kak argues that a small nuclear force, such as the one he envisages, would not require the

elabo-rate command, control, and intelligence functions that were required for the far more extensive forces of

the superpowers or even the principal nuclear weapons states. However, he does recog-nize that:

Whatever structures need to be created, these must ensure high levels of surviv-ability for the top leadership and

provide foolproof and redundant communica-tions (digital telecom, space, radio) with the Strategic Command

and nuclear forces. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) protection requirements for critical com-mand centres and

communication nodes may also have to be considered.[64]

Kak’s prospective force structure conforms most closely to India’s existing capabilities. However, even he

postulates the development of a command, control, communications, and intelligence system that has yet to be

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (11 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
constructed. Also, despite his very realistic assessment of India’s existing and future capabilities, Kak avoids the

issue of nuclear targeting and questions of what would constitute the infliction of “unacceptable damage” on

India’s nuclear-armed adver-saries, Pakistan and China.

7. Assessing the Force Structures

All the projected force architectures discussed above have particular shortcomings and limitations. They also

have some common problems. Among other issues, most of them fail to adequately assess the likely impact of

India’s strategic nuclear programs on those of Pakistan and China. Even when this issue is addressed, the

discussions are mostly cursory.[65] More to the point, with the striking exception of Rear Admiral Raja

Menon’s analysis, none of the various strategic options and architectures that have been discussed examine the

prospects of arms control, confidence building, and cooperative monitoring to ensure crisis stability.

It is reasonable to assume that no Indian government within the foreseeable time horizon is likely to dismantle

India’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. Based on such an assumption, the majority of the

existing proposals fall considerably short of addressing the needs of strategic and crisis stability in the region. 

The lack of discussion of these questions in the Indian strategic debate should be of concern not only to Indian

analysts and policymakers but to all individuals concerned about the avoidance of a nuclear conflagration in

South Asia.

About the Author

Sumit Ganguly is a Professor of Asian Studies and Government at the University of Texas at Austin. He has

previously taught at James Madison College of Michigan State Univer-sity, Columbia University, Hunter

College, and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. A specialist on the politics of South and

South-East Asia, he has written extensively on democratization, ethnic conflict, and violence. His research and

writing have been supported by grants from the American Institute of Indian Studies, the Asia Foundation, the

Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Smithsonian

Institution and the United States Institute of Peace. He has also held fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. and at the Center for International Security and

Cooperation at Stanford University. His most recent book is The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of

Peace (The Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press).

The author thanks Kent Biringer, Stephen P. Cohen, and Scott D. Sagan for comments on an earlier draft. The

author assumes responsibility for all errors of fact and interpretation.

Distribution

350 MS 1373 CMC Library, 5341

1 MS 9018 Central Tech Files, 8945-1

2 MS 0899 Technical Library, 9616

1 MS 0612 Review & Approval Desk, 9612

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (12 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
1 India had previously carried out one nuclear test at the same test site in May 1974. Faced with widespread

international disapprobation, it had then refrained from carrying out any further tests. For an early analysis of the

motivations underlying the Indian nuclear test of 1974, see Sumit Ganguly, “Why India Joined the Nuclear

Club,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1983, Volume 39, Number 4, pp. 30–33.

[2] For a sampling of adverse reactions to the Indian and Pakistani tests, see the various articles in “India Bombs

the Ban,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 54, Number 4, July/August 1998.

[3] On the imposition of the sanctions regime and its gradual erosion, see Robert M. Hathaway, “Confrontation

and Retreat: The U.S. Congress and the South Asian Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Today, Volume 30, Number

1, January/February 2000, p. 7–14.

[4] The formal U.S. position is spelled out in Strobe Talbott, “Dealing With the Bomb in South Asia,” Foreign

Affairs, March/April 1999, Volume 78, Number 2.

[5] See “Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine” at http://www.

indianembassy.org/polic1⁄4ine_aug_17_1999.html#2.

[6] The doctrine reflects the concepts of deterrence that are discussed in Glenn Snyder, Deterrence and Defense:

Toward a Theory of National Security (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.)

[7] See “Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine,” op. cit, p. 2.

[8] Ibid., pp. 2–3.

[9] Ibid., p. 3. Critics of the draft nuclear doctrine have asserted that the creation of a triad may impose dramatic

costs upon the Indian defense budget. They have also criticized the vagueness of the term “sea-based assets.” 

See for example, R. Ramachandran, “Unclear nuclear identity,” Frontline, Volume 16, Issue 18, August

28-September 10, 1999, or go to http://www.the-hindu.comm/fline/fl1618/16180160.htm.

[10] For a discussion of civilian supremacy over the military in India, see Veena Kukreja, Civil Military

Relations in South Asia: Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991).

[11] For a discussion of the concept of reassurance, see Sir Michael Howard, The Causes of Wars and Other

Essays. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) For a description and analysis of the three Indo-Pakistani

wars, see Sumit Ganguly, The Origins of War in South Asia: The Indo Pakistani Conflicts Since 1947 2nd Edition

(Boulder: Westview Press, 1994).

[12] Michael Kraig, “The Indian Drive towards Weaponization: the Agni Missile Program,”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/ guide/india/missile/agni-improvements.htm. Also see Deborah J. Foster, The Indian

Space Program (McLean, VA: Science Applications International Corporation, 1999).

[13] Janne Nolan, Trappings of Power (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1991), pp. 40–48.

[14] Federation of American Scientists, “Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems,”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/ india/missile/prithvi.htm. Also see Bharat Rakshak, “PRITHVI SRBM,”

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ MISSILES/Prithvi.htm1.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (13 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
[15] http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/NuclearNumbers/india.htm

[16] http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/News/00-Sept.html

[17] International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, 1999–2000 (London: International

Institute of Strategic Studies, 2000), p. 163.

[18] For an analysis of the state of the development of the nuclear-powered submarine and the Sagarika missile,

see Andrew Koch, “Nuclear-powered submarines: India’s strategic trump card,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, June

1998, pp. 29–31.

[19] For a comprehensive account of the origins of the Indian nuclear weapons program, see George Perkovich,

India’s Nuclear Bomb (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). For an account of Indian nuclear

decision making, see Raj Chengappa, Weapons of Peace (New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2000). For an explanation

of the motivations underlying India’s decision to test nuclear weapons, see Sumit Ganguly, “India’s Pathway to

Pokhran II: The Sources and Prospects of India’s Nuclear Weapons Program,” International Security, Spring

1999, Volume 23, Number 4, pp. 148–177.

[20] See, for example, Scott Sagan, “The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation,” Current History, Vol.96 (April

1997), pp. 151-156. For a different formulation, see Pratap Mehta, “India: The Nuclear Politics of Self-Esteem,”

Current History, December 1998, Volume 97, Number 623, pp. 402–411. For an assessment of various

arguments, see Sumit Ganguly, “Explaining Indian Nuclear Policy,” Current History, December 1999, Volume

98, Number 632, pp. 438–440.

[21] Federation of American Scientists, “Nuclear Forces Guide,” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

index.html.

[22] Indian decision makers had referred to this test as a “peaceful nuclear explosion.”

[23] There is some evidence that India did consider carrying out further tests but eventually canceled the plans. 

See Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb, op. cit.

[24] Federation of American Scientists, “Nuclear Forces Guide,”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index. html.

[25] See David Albright, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996:

World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies (New York: Oxford University Press for Stockholm International

Peace Research Institute, 1997).

[26] Federation of American Scientists, “Nuclear Forces Guide,” http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

index.html.

[27] For a summary of critiques of the possible yields of the nuclear weapons, see Praful Bidwai and Achin

Vanaik, South Asia On A Short Fuse: Nuclear Politics and the Future of Global Disarmament (New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 1999); see also Debate, “The question of nuclear yield: BARC scientists present proof,”

Frontline, Volume 16, Number 25, November 27–December 10, 1999. See

http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1625/ 162508.htm.

[28] For a description and analysis of the three Indo-Pakistani conflicts, see Sumit Ganguly, The Origins of War

in South Asia: The Indo-Pakistani Conflicts Since 1947 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).

[29] For a detailed analysis of the political and strategic dimensions of the “Brasstacks” crisis, see Kanti Bajpai,

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (14 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
P.R. Chari, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Stephen P. Cohen, and Sumit Ganguly, Brasstacks and beyond: Perception

and the Management of Crisis in South Asia (New Delhi: Manohar, 1994).

[30] The Brasstacks exercise took place in a particular political context. During the 1980s, Pakistan was

involved in the Sikh insurgency in the Punjab. For a discussion of the etiology of the insurgency and Pakistan’s

involvement in supporting the insurgents, see Paul Wallace, in Martha Crenshaw (ed.), Terrorism in Context.

(University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995)

[31] P.R. Chari, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Stephen P. Cohen, and Devin Hagerty (eds.), The Complex Crisis of

1990: Politics, Proliferation and Insecurity. (Urbana: Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International

Security, 2000)

[32] For an analysis of the origins of the 1989 Kashmir insurgency, see Sumit Ganguly, The Crisis in Kashmir:

Portents of War, Hopes of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Washington, D.C.: Woodrow

Wilson Center Press, 1999).

[33] The Line of Control refers to the de facto international border that separates Indian and Pakistani forces in

the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. This line reflects the troop deployments after the 1971 war and was

delineated in the post-war settlement, the Shimla Agreement of 1972.

[34] On India’s role in precipitating the 1971 war in the wake of the political crisis and military crackdown in

East Pakistan, see Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose, War and Secession: Pakistan, India and the Creation of

Bangladesh (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

[35] Myron Weiner, “The Macedonian Syndrome: The Historical Model of International Relations and Political

Development,” World Politics. Volume 23, Number 4, July 1971, pp. 665-683.

[36]. See Robert McMohan, The Cold War on the Periphery (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994). For

an alternative formulation, see Ayesha Jalal, The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political

Economy of Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

[37] For a comprehensive and dispassionate account of the precipitants of the Sino-Indian border war, see

Stephen Hoffman, India and the China Crisis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

[38] See the discussion in Dennis Kux, Estranged Democracies (Washington, D.C.: National Defense

University Press, 1996).

[39] For a discussion of India’s defense modernization plans after the 1962 border war, see Raju G.C. Thomas,

Indian Defense Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

[40] For a discussion of Indian misgivings about Chinese nuclear weapons capabilities, see G.G. Mirchandani,

India’s Nuclear Dilemma (New Delhi: Popular Book Services, 1968).

[41] For an especially astute discussion of Indian strategic anxieties in the aftermath of the Sino-Indian border

war, see Sisir Gupta, “The Indian Dilemma,” in Alastair Buchan (ed.), A World of Nuclear Powers? (Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1966).

[42] Sumit Ganguly, “The Sino-Indian Border Talks: A View from New Delhi, 1981-1989” Asian Survey,

Volume XXIX, Number 12, December 1989, pp. 1111-1135.

[43] Rosemary Foot, “Chinese-Indian relations and the Process of Building Confidence: Implica-tions for the

Asia-Pacific,” Pacific Review, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (15 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
[44].

 Ramananda Sengupta, “Peking Ducked: Why is India worsening the China syndrome?” Outlook, May 10,

1999, pp.52-53.

[45] Bharat Karnad, “A Thermonuclear deterrent,” in Amitabh Mattoo (ed.), India’s Nuclear Deterrent:

Pokhran II and Beyond (New Delhi: Har-Anand, 1999), pp. 109–149.

[46] Karnad in Mattoo (ed.), India’s Nuclear Deterrent: Pokhran II and Beyond, pp. 130–131.

[47] For a discussion of three distinct schools of deterrence, see Charles L. Glaser, Analyzing Strategic Nuclear

Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 50–55.

[48] For a discussion of the “usability paradox,” see Scott D. Sagan, Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and

National Security (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 135.

[49] Karnad in Mattoo (ed.), India’s Nuclear Deterrent, op. cit, pp. 126–137.

[50] Neil Joeck, “Nuclear Relations in South Asia,” in Joseph Cirincione (ed.), Repairing the Regime. 

http://www. ceip.org/programs/npp/RegimeSouthAsia.htm.

[51] For a discussion of likely Chinese reactions to the growth of Indian nuclear and ballistic missile

capabilities, see Gregory S. Jones, From Testing to Deploying Nuclear Forces: The Hard Choices Facing India

and Pakistan (Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1998).

[52] Vijai K. Nair, “The Structure of An Indian Nuclear Deterrent,” in Amitabh Mattoo (ed.), India’s Nuclear

Deterrent: Pokhran II and Beyond (New Delhi: Har-Anand, 1999), pp. 65–107.

[53] Ibid., pp. 98–99.

[54] Michael Quinlan, "How Robust is India-Pakistan Deterrence?" Survival, Volume 42, Number 4, Winter

2000-01, pp.141-154

[55] K. Subrahmanyam, “Nuclear Force Design and Minimum Deterrence Strategy for India,” in Bharat Karnad,

ed., Future Imperiled: India’s Security in the 1990s and Beyond (New Delhi: Viking Penguin, 1994),

pp. 177–195.

[56] Ibid., p. 189.

[57] Ibid., p. 192.

[58] K. Sundarji, “India’s Nuclear Weapons Policy,” in Jorn Glelstad and Olav Njolstad, ed., Nuclear Rivalry

and International Order (London: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 173–195.

[59] An important exception is retired Admiral K.K. Nayar, a long-time proponent of an Indian nuclear weapons

capability.

[60] Rear Admiral Raja Menon (Retd.), A Nuclear Strategy for India (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000).

[61] Ibid., pp 224–231.

[62] Ibid., pp. 201–206.

[63] Kapil Kak, “Command and Control of Small Nuclear Arsenals,” in Jasjit Singh (ed.), Nuclear India (New

Delhi: Knowledge World, 1998), pp. 266–285.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (16 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]
[64] Ibid., p. 279.

[65]. Sundarji’s analysis is an important exception. See K. Sundarji, “India’s Nuclear Weapons Policy,” in Jorn

Glelstad and Olav Njolstad, ed., Nuclear Rivalry and International Order (London: Sage Publications, 1996),

pp. 173–195.

Potential Indian Nuclear Forces Postures

http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/00research-analysis/paperandreports/Ken/19_Ind%20Force.htm (17 of 17) [03/19/2001 8:19:36 AM]