PONI Member Raja Karthikeya’s Original Piece on U.S. Extension of BMD to India

PONI member Raja Karthikeya wrote the following original piece for the PDTI blog on the implications of U.S. extension of BMD to India:

BMD, India and the Atom

Raja Karthikeya Gundu (Junior Fellow - Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University)

The bilateral discussions to extend the US missile defense shield to India have restarted the debate about India’s nuclear posture and its implications for US security architecture. In recent years, India has made considerable strides towards a triad of nuclear delivery systems. Two of the three legs of the triad are fairly functional since the acquisition of Su-30s from Russia and the successful deployment of the indigenously developed Prithvi and Agni missiles. At the same time, since India has an avowed “no first use policy”, these fighter-bombers, and missiles are part of the India’s counterstrike capabilities which need to be safeguarded, ostensibly with a ballistic missile shield.  India has made an effort to develop an indigenous system - the “Pradyumna”. But, India has simultaneously been interested in acquiring the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system from the US, especially for exo-atmospheric interception of Chinese IRBMs.

However, accepting a US missile defense system like THAAD is a step towards becoming part of the US Ballistic Missile Defense architecture. And that is a controversial topic in Indian politics. In this debate, both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum in India oppose the move, although for entirely different reasons (see Harsh Pant’s recent “Contemporary debates in Indian foreign and security policy” for an excellent analysis of this issue). While the Left believes that moving towards BMD would compromise India’s commitment toward global disarmament, the Right believes that US will use the BMD to restrict India’s nuclear deployment options. And the sentiment on this issue is equally ironic in the US. While left-leaning Democrats think of a BMD sale to India as a nail in the coffin of disarmament, several conservative Republicans feel that irrespective of the common threat to US and India from China, India should not be trusted with sensitive BMD technology since it is a “fair-weather ally” and should not be rewarded for its defiance of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

On the other hand, supporters of the BMD acquisition in both US and India believe that it could be mutually beneficial. Not only would it be another milestone for US-India strategic cooperation, the BMD would also gain from the inputs from the Indian missile program’s skilled manpower. In fact, it is this debate, rather than any facts about the technology of the BMD (which is supposed to use only non-nuclear-tipped interceptors) that tie-up India’s nuclear posture with the ongoing talks about missile defense and make/break BMD acquisition by India.