Manoj Ambat's Blog dealing with Defence, Foreign Affairs, Strategic Affairs and Politics

South China sea ( Image credits- VOA) Source- Want China Times China-US relations appear to be heading down the wrong path after American military officials recently indicated that US ships and aircraft would be sent to disputed waters in the South China Sea notwithstanding China's territorial claims in the region, says Duowei News, a US-based Chinese political news outlet. "Make no mistake, we will fly, sail and operate wherever international law permits," said US defense secretary Ash Carter on Oct. 13, in response to a question about China's aggressive land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, where it is engaged in territorial disputes with countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. "We will do that in the time and place of our choosing," he added. Carter's statements came a day after the New York Times reported that the US plans to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of China's man-made islands in t

Nagasaki bomb ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / Charles Levy) Source- The Diplomat Author- Ankit Panda On Monday, a top Pakistani official confirmed what had long been suspected by the arms control community: Pakistan will use low-yield nuclear weapons in responding to hypothetical Indian incursions into its territory. According to Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhary, Pakistan is formalizing it’s plans to use these low-yield nuclear bombs to forestall the advance of Indian troops under New Delhi’s “Cold Start” doctrine. Chaudhary’s statement marks the first time Pakistani officials have acknowledged their intent to use low-yield, or so-called “tactical,” nuclear weapons in a potential future conflict with India. India does not currently operate or plan to develop tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s research and development efforts into tactical nuclear weapons have been an open secret for some time. Khalid Kidwai, the longest serving head of Pakistan’s Str

USS Freedom ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / United States Navy) Source- The National Interest Author- Mercedes Page Last week’s revelation that the Pentagon had been briefing Asian allies that U.S. Navy warships would soon conduct freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea has ramped up tensions in the world’s most hotly contested body of water. Expected to take place within the next few days, the patrols would see U.S. naval ships come within 12 nautical miles of at least one of China’s controversial features in the South China Sea for the first time since 2012. China has responded to the news about the impending patrols by stating that it will “not permit any country to infringe on China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands in the name of ‘protecting freedom of navigation and over flight.’” However on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, reinforced the U.S.’s more muscular stance in the region, declaring that the U.S. “wi

Shenyang J-31 ( Source- Wikimedia Commons / WC) Source- The National Interest Author- Malcolm Davis Paul Dibb recently wrote on The Strategist/The National Interest that China has long-term systemic problems which will prevent its continued rise to Asian great power status, and that as a “brittle state,” China can’t afford to go to war as the risk of failure is too great. But he ignores China’s strategic culture, its history and national identity, all of which strongly influence its policy choices in Indo–Pacific Asia today and into the future, including any decision to go to war, and which also drive its military modernization process. He then rather unconvincingly characterizes China as an isolated power absent friends. President Xi Jinping promotes the idea of the ‘China Dream’, which is about restoring China’s traditional, and from its perspective, rightful position as the leading or dominant power in Asia. From a domestic perspective, this demands that China cont

USS Woodrow Wilson- Part of the 41 for Freedom SSBNs in service with the USN (Image credits- Wikimedia Commons) Source- The National Interest Author-  Joseph Trevithick A key component of the U.S. doctrine of mutually assured destruction — commonly and appropriately known as MAD — was that American troops would still be able to retaliate if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack. But for a time, the Pentagon was seriously worried that its own nuclear missile submarines wouldn’t get those orders in time. In 1968, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Scientific Advisory Committee found dangerous gaps in the communications network supporting the nation’s so-called Fleet Ballistic Missile boats, or FBMs. The FBM fleet included more than 40 submarines of five different classes all capable of carrying up to 16 Polaris nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, collectively known as the “41 for Freedom.” The agency included the report in a response to a private individual’s Fr