China And Pakistan Nuclear Powers At Sea (Daniel 7)

 
Revealed: Why China Is Selling Submarines to Pakistan

Does the sale represent a step in China’s possible ambitions to have a toehold in the Indian Ocean?
By Benjamin David Baker
September 28, 2015

As previously covered by The Diplomat, Pakistan announced earlier this year that it has agreed to purchase eight modified Type 41 Yuan-class diesel-electric submarines from China. These boats will provide Islamabad with much-needed Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities against the Indian Navy in case of war. This would be especially useful in case of an Indian blockade of Pakistan’s coast and could give New Delhi grounds to pause before deploying its planned new aircraft carrier, the INS Vikrant.

A Yuan-class submarine is undoubtedly a great piece of kit. It is China’s first class of submarines to incorporate an indigenously designed- and constructed Air-Independent Propulsion system (AIP), giving it a cruise speed of 18 knots and an operational range of 8,000 nautical miles. Although the export version of the Yuan, named the S-20, does not automatically come fitted with the AIP, Pakistan has apparently been able to secure it for its subs. Furthermore, the Yuan is integrated “with advanced noise reduction techniques including anechoic tiles, passive/active noise reduction and an asymmetrical seven-blade skewed propeller.”

Combined with the AIP, this makes the Yuan-class the quietest non-nuclear sub in the PLAN. Furthermore, the Yuan has an impressive set of teeth. Aside from six tubes firing standard 553mm torpedoes, it is equipped with the YJ-8/8A Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM). While this weapon only has a maximum range of between 30-42 km, there are plans to equip the Yuans with the YJ-18 ASCM. These missiles have a reported range of 220 km and, represent a real A2/AD “force multiplier” for the Yuan. Whether Pakistan will attempt to acquire these missiles, or opt to go for another option (such as their indigenously produced Hatf VII Babur) is unknown.

The sale raises one crucial question: why is China selling Pakistan these subs? There is undoubtedly a commercial aspect to this transaction (it is unknown how much Pakistan will pay for these boats, although it is certainly in the multi-billion dollar range). However, one potential reason which is worrying analysts in New Delhi is that this represents a step in China’s possible ambitions to have a toehold in the Indian Ocean. Without opening the can of worms that is the “String of Pearls” debate, it’s worth looking at this possibility.

Here are the facts: Firstly, the Indian Ocean is important for China for a range of reasons. The amount of Chinese sea-borne trade which passes through the Indian Ocean sea-lane is staggering. These sea-lines of communication (SLOCs) represent a lifeline for the Chinese economy, not least in terms of imports of natural resources, especially hybrocarbons, and exports, in terms of manufactured goods. Any naval strategist worth his salt has read Alfred Thayer Mahan, and will immediately recognize the importance of securing a trading state’s SLOCs. China is no exception.

Secondly, China has recently deployed submarines to the Indian Ocean. (This, incidentally, included the visit of a Yuan-class boat to Karachi.) According to Beijing, these are primarily there to participate in the ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the Gulf of Aden. While this is at least partially true, it is also likely that they are conducting exercises, surveys, and perhaps even combat patrols which can be useful for future operations in the Indian Ocean. Thirdly, Beijing does care about its image and is “realistic” about its power-projection capabilities. According to a recent US Naval War College report, it’s unlikely that China will construct overseas bases in the same way that the United States or France have in the near future in fear of alarming other stakeholders and overstretching naval resources needed closer to home. Finally, China is a long way from the Indian Ocean, and Pakistan is its closest partner in the neighborhood.

Even if its subs can stay at sea for months without refueling at a time, its crews can’t. Having a well-fitted anchorage close to a submarine’s intended area of operations makes it much easier to rotate crews, take on fresh supplies, and carry out maintenance. The PLAN has already called on ports in Oman, Djibouti, and Aden during its anti-piracy campaigns in the Gulf of Aden. However, this has so far only included surface vessels. Submarines often require more specialized facilities to function effectively. Locating a resupply place (not base) in the friendliest state in the area makes sense.

A Pakistani naval facility which already berths compatible subs sounds like a good fit for such a “place.” It would remove the need to permanently station a large number of personnel and equipment abroad, while providing adequate maintenance facilities for the sort of routine repairs that submarines unavoidably need in order to function smoothly over long periods of time. This wouldn’t represent the first time this kind of arrangement has occurred. For example, the British Oberon-class was used by several other allied states during the Cold War, including Australia and Canada. The fact that these navies operated the same class of vessels facilitated maintenance during exercises and visits

Khamenei Passes Iran Deal! (Ezekiel 17)

 
Iran’s Khamenei backs parliamentary vote on nuclear deal with powers – state TV

Thu Sep 3, 2015 | 1:46 PM EDT
By Parisa Hafezi

ANKARA (Reuters) – Iran’s Supreme Leader said on Thursday he favored a parliamentary vote on its nuclear deal reached with world powers and called for sanctions against Tehran to be lifted completely rather than suspended, state television reported.

President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist whose 2013 election paved the way to a diplomatic thaw with the West, and his allies have opposed such a parliamentary vote, arguing this would create legal obligations complicating the deal’s implementation.

“Parliament should not be sidelined on the nuclear deal issue … I am not saying lawmakers should ratify or reject the deal. It is up to them to decide,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state policy in Iran.

“I have told the president that it is not in our interest to not let our lawmakers review the deal,” the top Shi’ite Muslim cleric said in remarks broadcast live on state TV.

The landmark pact, clinched on July 14 between Iran and the United States, Germany, France, Russia, China and Britain, would limit Iran’s nuclear program to ensure it is not put to making bombs in exchange for a removal of economic sanctions.

Khamenei himself has not publicly endorsed or voiced opposition to the Vienna accord, although he has praised the work of the Islamic Republic’s negotiating team.

A special committee of parliament, where conservative hardliners close to Khamenei are predominant, have begun reviewing the deal before putting it to a vote. But Rouhani’s government has not prepared a bill for parliament to vote on.

Ali Larijani, Iran’s parliament speaker, told reporters in New York on Thursday that Iranian lawmakers would likely debate the accord more heatedly than in the U.S. Congress, where Republicans have sought to kill the deal.

Larijani, an ex-chief nuclear negotiator, said he personally considered the accord good but some stiff opposition remained in the Majlis (parliament), including over a so-called “snapback” clause under which U.N. sanctions can be reinstated in the event of alleged violations of the terms of the settlement.

A senior Iranian lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters a Majlis committee created to assess the deal would reach a decision within weeks, with a parliamentary vote in around a month.
 
OBAMA GATHERS NEEDED SENATE VOTES

For his part, President Barack Obama secured enough Senate votes on Wednesday to see the nuclear pact through Congress — a vote must be taken by Sept. 17 — but hawkish Republicans vowed to pursue their fight to scuttle it by passing new sanctions.

Khamenei said that without a cancellation of sanctions that have hobbled Iran’s economy, the deal would be jeopardized.

“Should the sanctions be suspended, then there would be no deal either. So this issue must be resolved. If they only suspend the sanctions, then we will only suspend our nuclear activities,” he said. Iran and the Western powers have appeared to differ since the accord was struck on precisely how and when sanctions are to be dismantled.

“Then we could go on and triple the number of centrifuges to 60,000, keep a 20 percent level of uranium enrichment and also accelerate our research and development (R&D) activities,” the Supreme Leader added.

The Vienna agreement places strict curbs on all three sensitive elements of Iran’s nuclear program, seen as crucial to creating confidence that Tehran will not covertly seek to develop atomic bombs from enriched uranium.


Iran has said it wants only peaceful nuclear energy.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Iran’s arch regional enemy, insisted on Thursday most Americans agreed with him over dangers posed by Tehran, even as he lost his battle to persuade Congress to reject the deal once Obama had bagged enough votes to get it upheld.
Khamenei also criticized the United States’ Middle East policy, suggesting that antagonism prevailing between Iran and Washington since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran will not abate because of the nuclear deal.

“Our officials have been banned from holding talks with Americans except on the nuclear issue. This is because our policies differ with America,” he said.

“One of America’s regional policies is to fully destroy the forces of resistance and wants to retake full control of Iraq and Syria … America expects Iran to be part of this framework,” Khamenei told a session of the Assembly of Experts which has the power both to dismiss a Supreme Leader and to choose one. “But this will never happen.”

By “forces of resistance”, Khamenei was alluding to Islamist militant groups such as Hezbollah, a close ally — like Iran — of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his war with rebels trying to overthrow him.

Rouhani has made it clear in his speeches that he favors greater engagement with the world, seeming open to cooperating with the United States to reduce conflict in the Middle East.

But Khamenei and his hardline loyalists remain deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions. Relations with Washington were severed in 1979 and hostility towards the United States remains a central rallying point of influential hardliners in Tehran.

The Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7 and 8)

World’s Nuclear Powers

Military Nuclear Weapon Storage

Military base in Texas where nuclear weapons are being kept

© AP/ Juan Carlos Llorca

18:30 06/08/2014

MOSCOW, August 6 (RIA Novosti) – The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons establishes that “for the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.”

The “nuclear club” includes Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China.

India and Pakistan are de facto, rather than de jure, nuclear-weapon states.

India tested its first nuclear device on May 18, 1974. On May 11 and 13, 1998, five nuclear devices, including one thermonuclear device, were detonated, according to an Indian statement. A consistent critic of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, India has declined to sign it to date.

Pakistan tested its first nuclear devices on May 28 and May 30, 1998. In all, six high-enriched uranium nuclear devices were detonated in two days during two underground nuclear explosions. For many years, Pakistan has declined to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear state.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – North Korea) joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in December 1985 but withdrew from it in January 2003. Currently, international law experts disagree on the legal status of North Korea regarding its membership in the Treaty. Some experts believe that North Korea formally remains a member country because no mechanism for withdrawing from the Treaty is stipulated.

In February 2005, North Korea openly announced the creation of its own nuclear weapons for the first time. On October 9, 2006, North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test. The second and third nuclear devices were detonated on May 25, 2009, and February 12, 2013, respectively.

In May 2012, the country officially proclaimed itself a nuclear-weapon state and amended the national constitution accordingly.

On April 9, 2006, Iran joined the nuclear club. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made this statement and announced that the country had completely perfected the process for manufacturing nuclear fuel under laboratory conditions.

The United States and several other Western countries suspect Iran of developing its own nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program. Tehran denies all accusations and says its nuclear program is solely to meet national electricity demand.

Iran has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1970.

South Africa has completed the full cycle needed for producing a nuclear explosive device.In August 1988, the South African Republic officially admitted the existence of its military nuclear program.

In 1988, activities reminiscent of preparations for the testing of a nuclear device were recorded in the Kalahari Desert. The activities could be related to a test of a nuclear explosive device that could have been made by South Africa or another country.

In 1991, South Africa joined The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear state. Currently the South African Republic does not possess nuclear weapons. However, it does have the technological and industrial wherewithal to manufacture them.

Israel’s leadership for many years has been pursuing a policy known as “nuclear uncertainty” whereby they neither deny nor admit the possession of a nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, most experts do not doubt the existence of Israeli nuclear forces based on the classic “nuclear triad.” For many years, Israel has been resisting joining the NPT as a non-nuclear state and extending IAEA guarantees to all of its nuclear facilities.

”Latent” or “threshold” nuclear countries make up a separate group. Experts consider a nation a “threshold” country, if it has research and technological potential in the nuclear area which would allow that country to rapidly make a nuclear weapon following a political decision by its leadership.

Experts refer to such countries as Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan and others as threshold countries.

Three countries (Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan) which used to have nuclear weapons following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, signed the Lisbon Protocol in 1992 to the Treaty between the USSR and the US on the reduction and limitation of strategic nuclear weapons. By signing the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty and were listed as countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been, at present, ratified by 36 countries, including three countries with nuclear weapons – Russia, Britain and France. India, the DPRK and Pakistan have not signed the Treaty, while the US, China, Egypt, Israel and Iran have signed but have not ratified it.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the total number of nuclear warheads in the world is 16,300 as of January 2014.

Russia and the United States combined possess 93 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

The US has 1,920 deployed nuclear warheads (of 7,300), whereas Russia has deployed about 1,600 (of 8,000 total).

The UK and France have 225 and 300 warheads, respectively.

According to SIPRI data, at the beginning of the year China had 250; India, 90 to 100; Pakistan, 100 to 120; and Israel 80 nuclear warheads. North Korea is estimated to have six to eight nuclear weapon units.

The countries in possession of nuclear weapons that are available for immediate use include Russia (1,600), the US (1,920), the UK (160) and France (290). SIPRI data indicate that these warheads are already installed on missiles or are kept at military bases where they can be launched.