“Regional’ Nuclear Conflicts

Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Escalation in Regional Conflicts Lessons from North Korea and Pakistan

Jerry Meyerle

With Contributions from Ken Gause and Afshon Ostovar

November 2014

Executive Summary

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems threatens to restrict U.S. options in future conflicts. It may be increasingly difficult to act militarily without risking escalation to nuclear war. For relatively weak states facing threats of militaryaction by larger powers such as the United States, a key lesson from recent interventions is that nuclear weapons are the ultimate protection against defeat in war. Had Libya under Muammar Gaddafi or Iraq under Saddam Hussain had a credible nuclear deterrent, the United States and NATO might have thought twice before attempting to overthrow these regimes by force.

Because nuclear weapons appear to take major war and regime change off the table, they promise greater space for smaller powers to conduct proxy warfare, violent provocations, and even limited military operations at lower levels of escalation.These developments pose a dilemma for the world’s status quo powers: responding militarily could lead to escalation and the risk of nuclear war, but failing to do so could lead to a cascade of low-level coercion in the future.

Since acquiring nuclear weapons, North Korea and Pakistan – the two cases examined in this study – have engaged in coercive and violent provocations, calculating that their larger rivals would concede rather than risk escalation that could lead to nuclear use. Both are revisionist powers with nuclear weapons that face rivals with significantly greater conventional military capabilities. So far, the phenomenon of coercive escalation by nuclear powers appears to be largely confined to Pakistan and North Korea. Yet, it has the potential to become a wider problem if additional countries with revisionist aims – Iran, for example – acquire nuclear weapons. Policy-makers may need a mix of strong but proportionate military options designed to counter and deter offensive actions at lower levels of conflict while controlling follow-on escalation. This may require a more diverse array of usable conventional capabilities and greater attention to escalation control in military planning and concepts of operation.

This paper addresses recent research on nuclear weapons and coercion, develops testable hypotheses based on this literature, and explores these questions through analysis of North Korean and Pakistani nuclear capabilities, strategy, and doctrine,including the development of limited nuclear options by Pakistan. The paper also explores instances of coercive escalation by both countries – including torpedo and artillery strikes on South Korean forces in 2010, and limited ground incursions and terrorist attacks attributed to Pakistan in 1999 and 2001. The case studies end with a brief analysis of subsequent changes to South Korean and Indian military doctrines as a result of these events. The study concludes by identifying common themes across the two cases and drawing implications for U.S. policy and military strategy.

Findings

Our research suggests that escalatory provocations, such as those traced back to Pakistan in 1999 and 2001 and to North Korea in 2010, are not likely in the near future, but remain a real possibility in the longer term. Neither regime gained much from the crises that resulted from these attacks, which suggests that possession of nuclear weapons may not, in fact, lend coercive leverage to smaller powers, regardless of their apparent resolve to actually use nuclear weapons. South Korea and India appear more resolved than ever to resist attempts at coercion spurred by offensive actions that create the risk of nuclear conflict. In the more distant future, however, the potential for renewed provocations of similar or greater magnitude cannot be ruled out – particularly as the North Korean and Pakistani nuclear programs develop and cross key thresholds. Nuclear weapons have taken on an increasing role in the defense policies of both countries as their conventional capabilities have deteriorated in relative terms. Both countries continue to pursue revisionist aims through force and demonstrate a tendency towards nuclear brinkmanship. Though Pyongyang and Islamabad appear to have gained little from attempts at coercive escalation, there appear to be elements in both regimes who view violent provocations as a promising and viable option.

Evidence from crises on the Korean Peninsula and the Indian subcontinent suggest that attempts at low-level coercion can, at least to some extent, be deterred. Limited military responses by South Korea and India appear to have had some effect on the strategic calculus in Pyongyang and Islamabad. There have been no North Korean provocations on the scale of the 2010 attacks since South Korea’s forceful response to the shelling of its marines in November of that year. Pakistan has not attempted military action in Kashmir since being repulsed by Indian forces in 1999, and has taken some, if limited, action against the militant groups responsible for the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament following threats of military action by New Delhi. On the other hand, continued Pakistani tolerance of militant groups such as those responsible for the 2001 Parliament attack suggests that future crises sparked by violent provocations remain a real possibility.

Provocations directed against India and South Korea have driven both countries to set aside traditionally defensive military postures and pursue options for limited offensive action in the event of another attack, including employment of precision weapons. These measures appear to have had some deterrent effect on leaders in Pyongyang and Islamabad. At the same time, these trends, combined with the continued development of the Pakistani and North Korean nuclear programs, raise the potential that the next provocation could lead to inadvertent escalation, possibly resulting in limited nuclear use by Pakistan or North Korea. Pakistan’s pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons is of particular concern, as is the potential for North Korea to follow Pakistan’s path as its nuclear capabilities develop.

Implications for policy

As the United States has reduced the role of nuclear options in its defense strategy and relied increasingly on conventional weaponry, North Korea and Pakistan have moved in the opposite direction. Long-term shifts in the conventional balance across Asia appear to be driving these changes, which suggests that they are here to stay. While violent provocations resulting in potentially escalatory military crises may not be very likely in the short term, our research suggests that they could occur further down the road.

Policy-makers will need options that promise to counter acts of low-level coercion and deter future attempts. At the same time, they will need tools – military and diplomatic – aimed at controlling escalation and minimizing the risk of nuclear use. This will be important for extended deterrence as well, because allies and partners are the more likely victims of low-level coercion. Defending them will be important for continued U.S. influence in Asia. Forward-deployed conventional forces capable of calibrated responses to low-level attacks and other acts of coercion are likely to play a central role.

The United States may also be called upon to mediate in crises between nuclear powers sparked by provocative acts of violence. Such mediation might include efforts to rein in South Korean and Indian forces keen to respond militarily to provocations. Attacks where attribution is not clear will prove a considerable challenge for deterrence and escalation control. Covert operations that afford some measure of plausible deniability could make it difficult to justify a military response. Where the originator is truly unknown, retaliation could involve considerable risks of escalation.

The military crisis sparked by the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament indicated that a non-state group operating independently could provoke a war between nuclear powers. Despite the best efforts of policy-makers in Washington, there remains the possibility that a crisis sparked by a violent provocation will result in limited nuclear strikes by a smaller power facing the prospect of military defeat. Such an attack could be directed at U.S. or allied forces. Realistic options will be needed for such contingencies.

Against limited nuclear strikes, non-nuclear threats may be more credible under certain conditions, given the lower threshold for use of even the most destructive conventional weaponry. Contingencies involving non-strategic nuclear strikes – for example, using a low-yield nuclear warhead, particularly against a non-strategic target – fall into a grey area where the threat of a strategic nuclear response may not be credible, particularly over issues that are not of existential concern to U.S. decision-makers. If non-nuclear munitions are capable of achieving the right effects to end the conflict or deliver a disarming counterforce strike, threats of nuclear retaliation may not be necessary.

Military options

Military commanders may need a diverse array of usable conventional options, particularly at the lower ends of the warfare spectrum. When it comes to deterring low-level coercion, conventional capabilities will be essential, as nuclear threats are not likely to be credible against low-level attacks. The problems identified in this study suggest that commanders may need a variety of military options below the threshold of major combat operations, aimed at sending a message rather than disarming an adversary. These options would need to be proportionate, timely, precise, and calculated to signal both resolve and restraint. Capabilities that might enable such responses include tactically oriented unmanned platforms, conventional cruise missiles, special operations forces, and non-kinetic options such as cyber and electronic attack. Employing ground forces may not be advisable, given the risks of becoming tied down in a protracted conflict.

Attempts to deter small-scale attacks through limited military operations could involve considerable risk of escalation. Escalation control would need to be a central planning factor in the design and employment of military options, taking into account aspects of the target regime. Escalation control measures must be integrated into war plans and concepts of operation. Military commanders may need to allow adversary leaders a way out in a crisis in order to avoid trapping them in an escalatory spiral. In the event of a strike that could be perceived as a strategic threat, it may be advisable to signal that the attack is limited, through public statements, discreet diplomatic and military channels, and careful choice of targets, weapons, and flight paths.

Finally, U.S. forces may need credible options in the event that a crisis spirals out of control and results in a limited nuclear attack. In the face of a credible and impending threat of nuclear use, a disarming counterforce strike may be the only viable option short of capitulation. The ability to credibly threaten disarming preemptive strikes may also serve as a powerful deterrent against coercion by new nuclear powers.

These findings suggest a need for additional research into the dynamics of escalation at the lower ends of the warfare spectrum, including non-violent acts of coercion. Recent exploits by Russia in the Ukraine and China in the western Pacific threaten to chip away at U.S. power and influence unless effective responses can be developed. The development of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia and Pakistan also requires further study. In particular, more work is needed on the appropriate range of responses should U.S. or allied forces become the target of a non-strategic nuclear attack.