Defense
QUAD Masquerading NATO

While the gravity of geo-politics and geo-economics have witnessed a shift from Transatlantic to Indo-Pacific, Quad has gained in currency. The Quad is a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue of India, Japan, the United States, and Australia with the potential of becoming a mutual defense alliance like NATO. The growing aggression of China in Asia has impacted the Quad members and resulted in like-minded nations collaborating to counter the common belligerent nation, China. NATO was formed to counter the USSR’s growing power during the Cold War. China challenges America’s hegemony and alters the global order; Quad can be the NATO of the twenty-first century. The Cold War was based on the ideological differences between the United States and USSR that resulted in defense and economic competition between the two superpowers. The Chinese defying American hegemony and taking power in Asia. This is Cold War II. Similar to the Cold War, the United States and China have ideological differences on liberty (Ideological) and pursuits of happiness (Economic) that challenge the global order. The Quad counters similar challenges like NATO during the Cold War, with China’s growing aggression in the South China sea, trade war with the United States, border disputes with India, and the trade restrictions on Australia are contributing to the strengthening of bonds among members to counter China’s global arrogance.
Cold War II
The impacted geopolitics of the world due to China’s power politics has created insecurity for a liberal international order, threatening the hegemony of the United States. The Cold War has returned to world politics with a two-decade break-up in the twenty-first century. Similar to the USSR in the Cold War, China is investing intensively to build allies in developing nations with the Belt and Road initiative to achieve its hegemonic status ambition. The Quad members are balancing players against China’s aggression in Indo-pacific. The United States supported the NATO allies to fight the USSR. In the present geopolitical context, the US has taken a firm stand in support of democratic allies in Asia to counter China and in calling for engagement with Taiwan. During the Cold war, USSR expanded its military capabilities and heavily invested in nuclear arsenal to fight the United States but in the twenty-first century, the form of war has evolved to be more cyber and space-oriented, and China’s growing cyber and space power can be countered by Quad, Asia’s NATO. Quad members are technologically sound and superior.
The United States, along with its allies, is now challenging China on world forums by taking a stronger stance against China’s human rights violation in Xinjiang and democratic protest in Hong Kong. The support by the United States and its allies for littoral states in Nine-Dash line, Taiwan, Thailand, and Bhutan are likely to increase in coming years that will intensify the Cold War II between the two. China’s race against the United States and resultant geopolitical developments is similar to the Cold War between the USSR and the United States because it is fighting another Communist regime with the same characteristics as the USSR. With China’s growing economic and military strength, it is contesting for the world superpower similar to the USSR after World War II. According to Thucydides’ trap, an apparent tendency to war exists when an emergent power threatens to supplant an existing great power as an international hegemon. The Quad in case of another faceoff will stand tall against China’s alliance with Pakistan, Russia, and Iran just like NATO stood against the USSR.
Quad’s Prospective
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue started in 2007. It resurfaced in 2017 out of necessity to balance China’s increasing strength in the Indo-Pacific region. The Quad has the potential to influence the Indo-Pacific region’s geopolitics starting with maritime exercises and Naval cooperation. The grouping of the four countries is based on liberal democratic values, and they have announced a military coalition as like-minded nations. The Quad members are against the growing power and repeated provocation of China and changing power dynamics of the world, the coalition will become the NATO of East due to China’s aggressive politics that is disrupting the liberal international order, values and the United State’s hegemony. The future of the Quad lies in evolving aggression of China, it is taking a hard stance against the United States in world forums but due to the underlying ideological differences, China will challenge the United States in economy and military to become the world hegemon in the future, and that will result in the conversion of the Quad: a military coalition, to the Asian NATO a military alliance between the United States, Australia, Japan, and India.
The geo-politics of the twenty-first century also point towards the rapidly changing power dynamics in Asia and the Middle East that will give space to China to exercise its power, the removal of forces from Afghanistan and increasing China’s relation with Iran in the Middle East is providing China the opportunity to expand its ideological influence and counter United States hegemony by challenging the world order.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further impacted the world order with China’s improved ties with weak economies and vaccine diplomacy to influence world politics. While the world economy paused, China made billions of dollars and inched closer to compete with the US in terms of GDP. The COVID-19 pandemic and China’s influence over World health organization have challenged United State’s hold over global institutions, but the vaccine diplomacy cooperation among the Quad members resulted in increasing success of the Quad and evolving interest in expanding Quad to become the Asian NATO.
India’s View on Quad
India is a peace-loving country with friendly ties but after the military standoff in Galwan Valley, India’s interest in the Quad has increased rapidly. India has now taken the bold step of being a proud member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. This highlights the change in the approach of the Indian foreign policymakers concerning the Indo-Pacific region. Due to China’s significantly increased activity in the Indo-Pacific region, India has realized that it needs to counter these Chinese initiatives as a Chinese-dominated Indo-pacific region would greatly deter and impact India’s external and internal policies. The border dispute between India and China and the military standoff in the Galwan Valley has further impacted relations. S. Jaishankar, Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2021, denounced speculations about the Quad being Asia’s NATO but the growing aggression of China and the continued military standoff on the border is likely to change India’s stance on the Quad. The Quad for India is not yet the military alliance but the coalition of like-minded countries in the Indo-Pacific region. The military alliance with the United States through Quad will help India counter China’s aggression and build better economic and defense ties with the United States. China’s financial support for the South Asian countries, the Belt and Road initiative, and the growing influence of China in the Indian ocean threats India’s national security. With the military alliance of the Quad, India can counter the growing aggression of China and become a regional hegemon.
Masquerading NATO and Conclusion
The South China Sea is adversely affected by China’s naval power, the Quad recent coalition exercises counter China’s aggression against Island states. Global trade and communication are impacted by China’s military advancement in the South China Sea. The coalition of Quad with maritime exercises, surveillance in the South China Sea, and support for its allies will change the geopolitics of Asia, it will therefore become Asia’s NATO. With the United States military power, the Quad will be able to prevent disruption of international law, trade, and order in Asia. Quad has the potential to fill the vacuum of leadership in Asia and counter China’s aggressive policies on the world forum. With the help of the Quad, the Liberal international order will be maintained. The strength of the Quad is in balancing the growing military and economic power in the region.
The formation and the re-emergence of the Quad come with high potential for security alliance in Asia, the Quad is likely to succeed in hybrid war of the twenty-first century because of their combined military capabilities. The Quad also needs to combine forces ideologically and politically on the international forum to fight a common disrupting force China to prevent the world order from plunging into chaos. NATO involved the USSR in the weaponry race and the poor economy of the USSR could not balance against the alliance, similarly, the Quad should form an economic and defense alliance to counter China. NATO with the help of the United States fought an unsustainable Ideology during the Cold War and similarly, in the twenty-first Century, the Quad will counter another communist threat to the liberal international order. It is China’s unethical business strategy of debt trap under BRI which is trading money for values, ethos and sovereignty of a nation under the garb of infrastructural development that has unleashed a series of protests in Hungary, Maldives, Samoa and now, Democratic Republic of Congo. China is imposing an existential threat to many nations, liberal ethos, institutional order and the hegemonic power of the United States. This makes the perfect condition for history to repeat itself and like-minded countries to combine forces. Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up. For China, this could mean losing Taiwan and Hong Kong and a series of massive protests in Xinjiang and Tibet.
For the Quad to succeed, it needs to have a clearer vision for itself. It is significant for individuals from the Quad to be more dynamic and tackle China with strategic planning. It is likewise critical to show receptiveness and guarantee that all discussion of a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ is something beyond a simple motto. India, Japan, and Australia can start to lead the pack in infrastructural projects, while the United States too should be in any way more supportive of dynamics in pushing ahead the vision of availability. The Quad should zero in on building a powerful territorial conference component and organize with ASEAN countries on issues of local significance. The Quad needs an aggressive approach in the region, and it needs a military capacity building that can counter China’s efforts in the South China Sea and Indo- Pacific region.
Defense
Indian Conventional and Strategic Arms Buildup: Implications for Pakistan

South Asia’s regional dynamic is both flamboyant and intricate. Various empires have formed, prospered, and perished over the millennia, as innumerable conflicts and struggles for control of resources spread over the globe. However, 2021 was a year of fierce weapons competition between South Asia’s nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan, who carried out 26 missile tests. India launched 16 ballistic and cruise missiles while Pakistan tested 10 missiles with nearly identical capabilities.
As a response to the perceived inability of the Indian Armed Forces (IAF) to adequately respond to the Pakistani insurgencies, and after the failure of the Indian forces to quickly react and mobilize their forces in 2001, the Indian Army and the defense policymakers realized the lack of modernized and consistent army doctrine. This resulted in the announcement by the Indian Army in 2004 of a new limited war doctrine known as the Cold Start Doctrine (CSD).
Importance of Air Base
The importance of air superiority can be witnessed by looking at the six days of the Arab-Israeli War, in which the Israeli forces pre-empted an attack from the bases of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, and struck the air force before the fight even began. The outcome of the war was determined during its first hours. By destroying the opposing air fleet, Israeli forces gained air superiority, and thus the Arab forces were helpless in their efforts, which eventually resulted in a humiliating defeat for the Arabs.
Indian Air-Bases: A Strategic Threat
In the contemporary era, military forces are going for weapon systems that require absolutely no time at all when it comes to striking a target. In that regard, the air force comes first for the obvious reason that its threshold is low as compared to a ballistic missile strike. Indian force deployment and employment are very close to Pakistan’s borders, from Siachen to the Rann of Kutch. In India’s most recent attack on Balakot, which took place in 2019, the air force was utilized. This clearly shows the Indian resolve to use the air force in any future blatant aggression like the one in February 2019.
The Indian air force deployment is tailor-made for Pakistan. If one analyzes the airbases/airstrips positioning and range from the Pakistani-Indo international border, the Line of Control (LOC), and the working boundary, it is quite obvious that the positioning shows the aggressive posture of the Indian Air Force. When deployed at those bases, the aircraft are the finest in the Indian military, both in terms of their quality and serviceability. When it comes to the up-gradation of the base’s facilities, this is the top priority list that is visible to everyone. In May 2021, the bases in Pakistan got priority.
The bases are positioned in such a strategy to cover every city in Pakistan, as it has no strategic depth. Pakistan’s major cities, like Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Hyderabad, Bahawalpur, Rahim Yar Khan, Sialkot, and even the capital, Islamabad, are within the Indian Air Force’s reach. The same goes for the areas in Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.
Future Threat Scenario
Now the question arises what will happen in the future in light of past historical data? The answer to this is both simple and complex. It is simple in the context that the IAF will target Pakistan with its pre-defined strategy of naked aggression against peaceful neighbors, while the Indian Army is following a pro-active offense posture; the complex part is where, when, and how.
The IAF will utilize the war scenario created by the Indian government and Indian media after a staged terrorist attack on a civilian or military target, for which they will put full blame on the Pakistani state and security apparatus. They will try to raise the temperature to the point where the Indian civil establishment shows the world community that now enough is enough and our people are demanding a counter-strike. At that time, the Indian establishment will use its media to put blame on Pakistan and create a war-like scenario while raising tensions.
In light of that, the IAF, under the orders of the Indian government, along with the Indian army, will start attacking the Pakistani bases in the early moments of the war because if the IAF does not target PAF bases, then there will be grave consequences for the Indian army, and the Pakistani army also has additional fire support bases. The above-mentioned rationale will be the main cause of the IAF attacking the PAF infrastructure, thus undermining the national security of Pakistan. The Indian army, with the IAF, will aspire to rapid, shallow penetration of Pakistani territory, without crossing the nuclear threshold of Pakistan. The Indian military will go for a quick and short battle that will surprise Pakistan because that is the only possible strategy in their minds when talking about limited war scenarios or showing off war.
Conclusion
The IAF is a major threat to the national security of Pakistan in the wake of its alignment with the Indian military’s CSD. The operational exercises conducted in the past and the recent strikes at Balakot exhibit the growing role of the IAF in the Indian military offensive strategy against Pakistan. Vast parts of Pakistan are within the combat radius of the IAF’s operational fighters because of Pakistan’s lack of strategic depth.
The IAF will try to use this as an advantage to support the pro-active and offensive strategy of the Indian Armed Forces to harm Pakistan, as that would be their prime objective because of their hegemonic designs. In order to protect itself from India’s flagrant military aggression, Pakistan should take some protective measures.
Recommendations
In the wake of the growing IAF threat, the PAF and Pakistani government should take the following measures on an urgent basis:
- Build some new airstrips along the border with India, to balance the threat by not allowing an IAF advantage in any sector. Moreover, the building of airstrips requires less money; thus this step will not put a strain on Pakistan’s economy;
- Buy more advanced surveillance radars to detect early IAF movement.
- Purchase advanced surface-to-air missiles to create a defensive barrier;
- Go for indigenizing the modern, state-of-the-art 5th generation fighter aircraft, as buying from foreign suppliers is very expensive.
- Ask the international community to put pressure on both sides to sign confidence-building measures that will lead to peace and stability.
Defense
The audacious AUKUS submarine deal and Asia’s changing security landscape

In this exhaustive analysis, I try to spell out the impact and potential consequences of the recently-brokered submarine deal between the U.S., the U.K., and Australia on Asia’s changing security landscape.
***
All advanced navies of the world possess lethal submarines, powered by either diesel-electric or nuclear propulsion. These underwater warships are the most potent asset at the disposal of a naval force for maritime power projection, sea denial and sea control. Lying silently under water, they are capable of sinking surface ships, including large aircraft carriers, with torpedoes or ballistic missiles. Ever since WW-II, submarines have made its name as one of the most crucial components of maritime strategy and naval warfare. Australia and the U.K. are two key maritime nations of the world, which happen to be security allies of the United States, a country that owns and operates the largest fleet of nuclear-powered submarines in the world. Being nuclear-powered not necessarily mean being armed with nuclear warheads.
The 2021-formed AUKUS (Australia, U.S., U.K.) “enhanced trilateral security partnership” has taken cooperation between the three Anglophone countries to the next level. U.S. President Joe Biden hosted the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and Australia – PM Rishi Sunak and PM Anthony Albanese – in the Californian port city of San Diego on 13 March 2023, where they jointly announced a detailed four-phased plan to equip Australia (a non-nuclear-weapon state) with “conventionally armed, nuclear-powered” submarines (codenamed SSN) at least by the next decade along with strengthening cooperation in other areas such as critical and emerging technologies.
The plan would cost Canberra’s exchequer up to a whopping A$ 368 bn. (US$ 245 bn.) in total by 2055, according to reports. The detailed plan, spanning a time frame of three decades, was announced after an eighteen-month-long consultation period following the creation of AUKUS in mid-September 2021. Australian PM Anthony Albanese called the deal “the single biggest leap” in Australia’s defence capabilities in the nation’s history. If the plan goes ahead smoothly as planned, Australia will become the seventh country in the world to add nuclear-powered submarines to its navy. As the deal turns out to be a race against time, the biggest challenge is to ensure deterrence capabilities for Australia at the present, as the full benefits of the deal would take years to materialise.
AUKUS leaders believe that the deal would “strengthen deterrence and bolster stability in the Indo-Pacific and beyond for decades to come”, apparently keeping in mind the exponential growth of China’s naval power in the recent past. China has built 12 nuclear-powered submarines in the last two decades, including ballistic missile submarines (codenamed SSBNs) and is continuing its ambitious ship-building spree in all fronts. As per the AUKUS plan, the first phase of the deal is set to begin as early as this year, with U.S. and British SSNs increasing their port visits in Australia along with joint embedded training of naval personnel, which will be followed by a rotational deployment of U.S. and British SSNs in the island continent.
In the remaining two phases of the deal, Washington will deliver a flotilla of three to five advanced Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia by the early 2030s, upon Congressional approval, and eventually a new “SSN-AUKUS class” of nuclear-powered submarines (SSN) will be developed in the decade that follows, for future commissioning in both British and Australian navies. With the use of nuclear energy involved, the Indo-Pacific region is abuzz with fears and concerns of an escalating arms race, even though AUKUS promises “the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard”.
Current owners of nuclear-powered submarines
As of now, only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France) and India have active nuclear-powered attack-capable submarines in their naval fleet (see the image below). More than half of the 130 active nuclear-powered submarines in the world are operated by the U.S. Navy (67), followed by Russia (31), China (12), U.K. (10), France (9) and India (1). The rise of China’s offensive military capabilities and its naval power in particular, since the 1990s, is the single largest factor that has convinced Canberra to join hands with Washington and London to bolster its own capabilities, through AUKUS, by making use of “next-generation” British hull design and “cutting-edge” American technology.

Countries with active nuclear powered submarines (via Statista)
The AUKUS deal smartly gets away with a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which allows for the transfer of fissionable material and nuclear technology from a nuclear-weapon state (NWS) to a non-NWS if it is used for non-explosive military use like naval propulsion. Such a transfer is also exempted from inspections and monitoring by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organisation that stands for the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the promotion of nuclear safety. The IAEA Director General said that he had received “separate communications” on the matter from the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Australia, as well as from the U.K. and the U.S.
Mixed reactions
Of all the countries that have reacted to the highly ambitious AUKUS project, the responses of China and Russia stands out, as they are in direct strategic competition with the de facto leader of AUKUS – the United States. While the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson remarked that the U.S. and its AUKUS allies are “walking further and further down the path of error and danger for their own geopolitical self-interest”, Russian foreign minister commented, “the Anglo-Saxon world, with the creation of structures like AUKUS and with the advancement of NATO military infrastructures into Asia, is making a serious bet on many years of confrontation in Asia”.
While Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong cities Canberra’s bid for “strategic equilibrium” in the region as the underlying factor that led to the AUKUS pact, opinions on the submarine deal, which comes at a humongous cost, are not uniform across Australia’s political spectrum. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating thinks Canberra is compromising on a proper national defence strategy to help maintain U.S. “strategic hegemony” in Asia and has also stated that the submarine deal would be ineffective in the event of a war. Indonesia, Malaysia and New Zealand have also shared their concerns about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the region.
As per the Bangkok Treaty of 1995, Southeast Asia is a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ). Moreover, almost all of the ASEAN member-states have deep economic linkages with China, even though they rely on the U.S. for “security and stability” in Asia. Even though some of them have disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea, like the Philippines and Vietnam, they prefer to avoid unnecessary “provocations” and try to balance their ties with the U.S. and China, amid intensifying regional rivalry between the two big powers. Australian defence and foreign ministries are expected to embark on a diplomatic charm offensive to assuage all concerns of Southeast Asian countries lying in China’s periphery.
Eyeing for balance of power
AUKUS was announced just one year after a Pentagon report claimed that China has built the world’s largest naval fleet in sheer numerical terms, even though the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) relies mostly on smaller classes of ships, while the U.S. naval strength is further multiplied by its allied navies. One of the most-overlooked events of March 2023 was the annual session of China’s ceremonial national legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), which handed over China’s Presidency to the hyper-nationalistic and revanchist leader Xi Jinping for an unprecedented third time in a row.
The newly-appointed Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang, formerly China’s Ambassador to the United States, held a press conference on the sidelines of the NPC, during which he made a significant remark that throws light on the deteriorating state of U.S.-China relations. He accused the U.S. of harbouring a “Cold War mentality” and said, “… the United States claims that it seeks to out-compete China but does not seek conflict. Yet in reality, it’s so-called competition means to contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum game … If the United States does not hit the brake but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation … Containment and suppression will not make America great, and it will not stop the rejuvenation of China …”
Washington’s shooting of a suspected Chinese “spy balloon” that flew over American airspace earlier this year is the latest example of this downward spiral in U.S.-China ties. The Indo-Pacific, as a geostrategic concept and a broader maritime region, came into being as China began to flex its military muscles throughout its immediate and extended neighbourhood, where U.S. and its allies have a robust military presence.
Being part of the U.S.-led alliance system, including the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing network and the recent AUKUS pact, Canberra has become a lynchpin of Washington’s evolving Indo-Pacific strategy to counter growing Chinese assertiveness and stated offensive intentions vis-à-vis Taiwan, the South and East China Seas, and also the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India. Australia is also due to the host the third in-person Quad leaders’ summit later this year.
As the “threat perception” of China in the West continues to rise day by day, the extent to which an AUKUS-centered deterrence is possible in Asia remains to be seen in the years to come.
Defense
Anti-Satellite Weapons: Risks and Regulations

Today, outer space is characterised as an increasingly congested, contested, and competitive domain. This is because of an unprecedented increase in satellites and actors operating them. 13 countries now possess the capability to launch satellites compared to only two in the late 50s. In 1959, there were only two man-made objects in outer space but as of 30th April, 2022, Union of Concerned Scientists’ database included 5,465 active satellites. The number stood at 3,372 on 31 December 2020 – indicating an increase of 62%.
The growing dependence over space-based assets for day-to-day activities, like communication, navigation, and weather forecasts etc. indicates that the numbers are likely to grow exponentially. The environment that these satellites face is not benign by any standard. The biggest threat emerges in the form of space debris which are any human-made objects in orbit around the Earth that no longer serve any useful purpose. 60 years of human activities in outer space have generated over 29,000 human-made objects of larger than 10cm, while even a 1cm object can collide with a satellite to cause damage comparable to a hand grenade. While some of the debris generation is inevitable, Destructive Anti Satellite Weapons (DA-ASATs) testing has been a leading source of debris creation – something that can be prevented.
DA-ASATs, part of the counterspace capabilities which help a state in establishing space superiority while denying the same to its adversary, are essentially missiles which either directly hit a satellite in outer space or destroy it through proximity detonations. Use of this capability generates debris in outer space and threatens sustainable utilisation of outer space for peaceful endeavours. Other non-kinetic counterspace capabilities include physical non-kinetic capabilities like lasers and High Power Microwaves (HPMs) that damage on board circuitry of satellites, electronic counterspace capabilities which affect the satellites’ communications channels and cyber capabilities which target the data.
In November 2022, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a non-binding resolution banning testing of DA-ASATs. The resolution was supported by an overwhelming majority of 154 states. The resolution was tabled by the United States (US) that had already announced a unilateral moratorium on such testing in April of that year. While the earliest demonstrations of such a capability date back to early Cold War, only four states have demonstrated this capability so far – the US, Russia, China, and India. While Russia and China voted against the resolution, India abstained from voting but expressed its preference for a legally binding treaty over self-declared moratoriums. Russia and China, on the other hand, objected to the resolution’s shortcomings over development of such a capability and lack of disarmament when it comes to states that already possess this capability. The two have also pointed out how the issue of non-kinetic ASATs was left out.
While the effort to mitigate debris-generation through banning the testing of DA-ASATs is praiseworthy, leaving out the continued possession, production, and development of DA-ASATs and more advanced non-kinetic capabilities is worrisome. In a way, the emerging trend of unilateral moratoriums and UNGA resolution is akin to establishing DA-ASAT ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ as was the case of nuclear non-proliferation regime. A taboo on testing of these technologies is likely to emerge, making it difficult for other states to enter this club. Such an outcome would be desirable if the intent was to avoid an arms race in outer space and move towards disarmament of existing capabilities. However, that does not seem to be the case.
France, for instance, joined the US in announcing a moratorium on testing of DA-ASATs – in a way surrendering its option to demonstrate this capability. However, in 2019, French Defence Minister had publicised a French plan to develop anti-satellite laser weapons stating that, ‘If our [French] satellites are threatened, we intend to blind those of our adversaries.’ Lasers and other non-kinetic means present a different set of challenges for space security. Possession of such capabilities is difficult to verify, it is difficult to establish attribution once such weapons have been employed, and their non-destructive nature lowers the threshold of use. In case of electronic and counterspace capabilities, the barriers to entry are lower and the risks of proliferation are higher. If other states with significant stakes in outer space emulate the French approach, it is only going to increase the likelihood of warfighting in outer space.
The emerging taboo on non-testing of DA-ASATs is not shared by three of the four states which have demonstrated this capability so far. Notwithstanding the American divergences with Russia and China, there is merit in the position that the latter have taken. The next step, therefore, needs to be disarmament of existing DA-ASAT capabilities and a ban on their development. Alongside, the issue of non-kinetic counterspace capabilities also needs to be addressed. Without a comprehensive approach towards space security and addressing the concerns of all stakeholders, there is no way to ensure that contestation in outer space will not escalate to undesirable levels.
-
Energy3 days ago
The Maneuvering Of Gas Commodities As Securitization Of Russia’s Geopolitical Position
-
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Indonesia’s ASEAN chairmanship 2023 plays a pivotal roles on ASEAN Power Grid repercussions
-
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
Break from the Crowds this Spring and Escape to these Family‑Friendly Destinations
-
Southeast Asia4 days ago
AUKUS and the U.S. Integrated Deterrence Approach
-
Defense4 days ago
Indian Conventional and Strategic Arms Buildup: Implications for Pakistan
-
East Asia4 days ago
Chinese MFA Report 2023: American hegemony and its risks around the world
-
Defense4 days ago
The audacious AUKUS submarine deal and Asia’s changing security landscape
-
Economy3 days ago
Xi Jinping and the implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy in China