Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Maybe I missed something, but why in the world would China ever lauch a catastropic nuclear attack on India? What could they possibly hope to gain by becoming an international pariah? Deterrence is only necessary when there is some sort of credible threat backed by intent. I can see the need to deter Pakistan, they have an unfortunate vulnerability to despotism and Islamic extremism despite the current popularly elected government, but why the paranoia about China?
|
Becuase it fears India is about to do so. They'd rather go back to being an international pariah state than get nuked. When you have nukes pointed at you, you assume they are real as is the intent behind them. The PRC so far has not needed to worry about India. India had a NFU policy and no credible means of a surviving a Chinese response even if they did strike first. This capability however is rapidly evolving for India. If the Agni-III does indeed end up road/rail mobile, China cannot assume it can take out India's second strike capability. This is good for India because it lessons the chance of Chinese nuclear blackmail. However India is doing two other things that when combined with the new missiles go past building a robust second strike capability and straight to an offensive nuclear posture.
India's plans to modernize its navy and its quest for nuclear powered attack subs in particular are a direct threat to China's second strike capability by giving India at least the potential for taking out China's second strike SLBM capability. By itself China can probably live with this as there are other means to deliver a second strike. But when you add the third Indian ambition you create a recipe that China has to respond to.
If India goes forward and develops a capable ABM system and the means to deploy it opposite China then all of a sudden the only thing protecting China from an Indian first strike is India's NFU policy. And that policy isn't worth the paper its printed on in the eyes of the CCP. They will judge India's intent by what they would do.
China cannot let its neighbor build that capability unmatched. To do so invites nuclear blackmail or even attack. How China will respond over the next decade is anyones guess. But it will be an arms race that will drag in Russia, US, Japan, and South Korea. The only way to head the arms race off is for India to not pursue any type of an ABM system that poses a threat to Chinese missiles. As long as India leaves China a MAD option all is good.
if India goes ahead with an ABM system then China has to build more missiles and finally deploy newer warheads. With the bigger economy, more fissile material and large cash reserves this is bad for India. Its a race India can't win, but it forces the US and Russia to counter China and might force Japan and or South Korea to go nuclear.
Nukes are not battleships, and a nuclear Jutland over Asia could easily burn down the entire planet. So if India does seek a real ABM capability, what is it really after? I don't think an arms race by itself is enough to get the NPT changed to allow India into the "club' of NWS under the treaty. She obviously not after security since ABM makes the situation more dangerous for the region. What then is the goal? I wish India had a more unified political will. It would make forcasting so much easier on me.
For example if India had a unfied political will and direction I would be willing to bet that long term the capability is aimed at getting a p5 seat and from there NWS status. After all one day the UK and France will have to give up thier seats for a single EU seat and the replacement P5 member list is rather small. Brazil and India are the only real contenders. Japan would like to be, but China will never allow it. They won't like India either, but if bringing India in as a P5 member brings with it an arms treaty....
However I don't think India is looking 20-30 years down the road. Does anyone else have any idea why India is building an offensive nuclear force? Because even if that is not the intent- that is the fact.