Connect with us

Defense

Unmanned Aircraft Systems & The Annihilistic Future

Published

on

The unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones were introduced as a useful means to military, commercial, civilian and humanitarian activities but yet it ends up in news for none of its original purposes. Drones have rather resulted as a means of mass destruction.

The recent attacks on the technical area of the Jammu Air Force Station highlights the same. This was a first-of-its-kind terror attack on IAF station rather the Indian defence forces that shook the National Investigation Agency to National Security Guard. The initial probe into the attacks directs to involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group based out of Pakistan, in the drone attacks as the aerial distance from the point of attack was just 14 kilometers. The attacks took place via an Electric multi-rotor type drone between 11:30 P.M to 1:30 A.M on 27th June, 2021.

The above incident clearly points out the security issues that lie ahead of India in face to the asymmetrical warfare as a result of drones. The Indian Government after looking at the misuse of drones during the first wave of the pandemic realised that its drone regulations were nowhere sufficient and accountable and hence passed the Unmmaned Aircraft Rules, 2021. These rules imposed stricter requirement for obtaining license and authorisations by remote pilots, operators, manufacturers or importers, training organisations and R&D organisations, thereby placing a significantly high burden on the applicants but at the same time they also permit UAS operations beyond visual sight of line and allowing student remote pilots to operate UAS.

But these rules still don’t have any control on the deadly use of drones because multi-rotor drones are very cheap and readily available and what makes them lethal is their ability to be easily detected, additionally the night time makes it even worse. Their small size grants them weak radar, thermal, and aural signatures, albeit varying based on the materials used in their construction.

The pertinent issue to be understood here is that these rules can never ensure safety and security as they cannot control the purpose for which these drones maybe used. There are certain factors that are to be accounted to actually be receptive to such imminent and dangerous threats. Firstly, significantly increasing urban encroachments  in areas around defence establishments, particularly air bases, has proved to be fatal. If frontline bases like Jammu or be it any other base when surrounded by unbuffered civilization poses two pronged problems, first it acts as high chances of being a vantage point for possible attackers and second, it also hampering the defence mechanism to come to an action. It is not limited to drone concerns but there have been cases of increased bird activity that has once resulted in engine failure of an IAF Jaguar and has caused similar problems all along.

Another important factor is that of intelligence. The Anti-drone systems will take their time to be in place and it is still a distant call to ascertain how effective will these systems be, so in the time being it is pertinent to focus on intelligence which may include sales and transfers of commercial drone, or the hardware that is required to build a basic multi-rotor drone. These are not something extraordinary because it is even in news when Pakistani drones were being used to supply weapons and ammunition to terror networks on Indian soil. Also, the past experience in handling ISIS have shown the weightage of intelligence over defensive nets.

Intelligence is no doubt a crucial factor in anticipation of drone attacks but what cannot be done away with is the defense mechanism. Efficient counter-drone technology is the need of the hour. DRDO has developed such technology that could provide the armed forces with the capability to swiftly detect, intercept and destroy small drones that pose a security threat. It is claimed that solution consists of a radar system that offers 360-degree coverage with detection of micro drones when they are 4km away, electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for detection of micro drones up to 2 km and a radio frequency (RF) detector to detect RF communication up to 3 km and is equipped for both soft kills as well as hard kills.

Hence, the above analysis brings out the need of the application of an international instrument because the technology used in such drone attacks is at an evolving stage and the natural barriers still have an upper hand over be it either flying a pre-programmed path aided by satellite navigation and inertial measurement units (IMUs), or hand controlled to the point of release or impact, both methods have significant limitations as satellite and IMU navigation is prone to errors even when it comes to moderate flight ranges while manual control is subject to the human limitations such as line of sight, visibility as well as technical limitations such as distance estimation of the target, and weak radio links. An example of this could be the Turkish-made Kargu-2 model of killer drone can allegedly autonomously track and kill specific targets on the basis of facial recognition and Artificial Intelligence (AI). As the AI becomes better and better, these drone attacks become more and more terminal.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic is an eye opener for India as well as the world as none of the countries considered the possibility of bio-defenses or made a heavy investment in it even when there was awareness about lethal effects of genetic engineering. Hence, it should be the priority of the government to invest heavily in research and make the development of defensive technologies a national priority else the result of artificially intelligent killer drones would be much more catastrophic.

Aditya Maheshwari is third year student at National Law University, Jodhpur. His primary interest are corporate and commercial law. He is an Associate Editor at Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Journal and Editor-in-chief at South Asian Threat Matrix. He can be reached at adityamaheshwari40[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Test of Agni Prime Missile and India’s Counterforce Temptations

Published

on

South Asia is widely regarded as one of the most hostile regions of the world primarily because of the troubled relations between the two nuclear arch-rivals India and Pakistan. The complex security dynamics have compelled both the countries to maintain nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis each other. India is pursuing an extensive and all-encompassing military modernization at the strategic and operational level. In this regard, India has been involved in the development of advanced missiles as delivery systems and improvement in the existing delivery systems as well. Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent and delivery systems are solely aimed at India; however, India aspires to fight a ‘two-front war’ against Pakistan and China. Therefore, the size and capability of its nuclear deterrent and delivery systems are aimed at countering both threats. However, most of the recent missile delivery systems made by India appear to be more Pakistan-centric. One recent example in this regard is the recently tested nuclear-capable cannisterized ballistic missile Agni Prime, which is insinuated as Pakistan-centric. These developments would likely further provoke an action-reaction spiral and would increase the pace of conflict in South Asia, which ultimately could result in the intensification of the missile arms race.

Just quite recently, on 28th June 2021, India has successfully tested an advanced variant of its Agni missile series, namely Agni Prime or Agni (P). The missile has a range between 1000-2000 kilometers. Agni Prime is a new missile in the Agni missiles series, with improved accuracy and less weight than Agni 1, 2, and 3 missiles. It has been said that the Agni-P weighs 50 % less than the Agni-3 missile. As per the various media reports, this missile would take the place of Agni 1 and 2 and Prithvi missiles, however officially no such information is available. This new missile and whole Agni series is developed as part of the missile modernization program under the Defence Research and Development Organization’s (DRDO) integrated guided missile development program. 

Agni-P is a short missile with less weight and ballistic trajectory, the missile has a rocket-propelled, self-guided strategic weapons system capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads. Moreover, the missile is cannisterized with the ability to be launched from road and rail. The DRDO claimed that the test flight of the missile was monitored by the telemetry radar stations and its trajectory met all the objectives of the mission successfully with high level of accuracy. Agni-P missile because of its range of 1000 to 2000 km is considered a weapon against Pakistan because within this range it cannot target China. Although, India already has different missiles in its inventory with the same range as the newly developed and tested Agni-P missile, so the question arises what this missile would achieve. 

Since the last few years, it has been deliberated within the international security discourse that India’s force posture is actually more geared towards counterforce options rather than counter-value options. Although, India’s nuclear doctrine after its operationalization in 2003, claims  “massive retaliation” and “nfu” but in reality with developing cannisterized weapons like Agni-P, Agni 5, and testing of hypersonic demonstrative vehicles, India actually is building its capability of “counterforce targeting” or “splendid first strike”. This reflects that India’s nuclear doctrine is just a façade and has no real implication on India’s force modernization.

These developments by India where it is rapidly developing offensive technologies put the regional deterrence equation under stress by increasing ambiguity. In a region like South Asia, where both nuclear rivals are neighbors and distance between both capitals are few thousand kilometers and missile launch from one side would take only a few minutes in reaching its target, ambiguity would increase the fog of war and put other actors, in this case, Pakistan in “use it or lose it” situation, as its nuclear deterrent would be under threat.

In such a situation, where Pakistan maintains that nuclear weapons are its weapons of last resort and to counter threats emerging from India, its nuclear deterrence has to hold the burden of covering all spectrums of threat. It might be left with no choice but to go for the development of a new kind of missile delivery system, probably the cannisterized missile systems as an appropriate response option. However, as Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence is based on principle of “CMD” which allow Pakistan to seek deterrence in a cost-effective manner and also by not indulging in an arms race. Therefore, other than the threat of action-reaction dynamic developments like Agni P by India, would make weapons more accurate and lethal, subsequently conflict would be faster, ambiguous, and with less time to think. In such a scenario, as chances of miscalculation increase, the escalation dynamics would become more complex; thus, further undermining the deterrence stability in South Asia.

India’s counter-force temptations and development of offensive weapons are affecting the deterrence equilibrium in South Asia. The deterrence equation is not getting affected just because India is going ahead with the development of offensive technologies but because of its continuous attempts of negating the presence of mutual vulnerability between both countries. Acknowledgement of existence of mutual vulnerability would strengthen the deterrence equation in the region and help both countries to move forward from the action-reaction spiral and arms race. The notions such as the development of offensive or counterforce technology or exploiting the levels below the nuclear threshold to fight a war would not be fruitful in presence of nuclear weapons. As nuclear weapons are weapons to avert the war and not to fight the war.

Continue Reading

Defense

Russia’s National Security Strategy: A Manifesto for a New Era

Published

on

The central feature of the new strategy is its focus on Russia itself. The Russian leadership has every reason right now to turn homeward to address the glaring weaknesses, imbalances, and inequalities of the country’s internal situation.

Russia’s new, forty-four-page National Security Strategy signed by President Vladimir Putin on July 2 is a remarkable document. It is much more than an update of the previous paper, adopted in 2015. Back then, relations with the West had already sharply deteriorated as a result of the Ukraine crisis, but were still considered salvageable; much of the liberal phraseology inherited from the 1990s was still in use; and the world still looked more or less unified. The current version of arguably the most important Kremlin strategy statement—covering not only national security issues, but a whole range of others, from the economy to the environment, and values to defense—is a manifesto for a different era: one defined by the increasingly intense confrontation with the United States and its allies; a return to traditional Russian values; and the critical importance for Russia’s future of such issues as technology and climate.

The strategy lays out a view of a world undergoing transformation and turmoil. The hegemony of the West, it concludes, is on the way out, but that is leading to more conflicts, and more serious ones at that. This combination of historical optimism (the imminent end of Western hegemony) and deep concern (as it is losing, the West will fight back with even more ferocity) is vaguely reminiscent of Stalin’s famous dictum of the sharpening of the class struggle along the road to socialism. Economically, Russia faces unfair competition in the form of various restrictions designed to damage it and hold it back; in terms of security, the use of force is a growing threat; in the realm of ethics, Russia’s traditional values and historical legacy are under attack; in domestic politics, Russia has to deal with foreign machinations aimed at provoking long-term instability in the country. This external environment fraught with mounting threats and insecurities is regarded as an epoch, rather than an episode.

Against this sobering background, the central feature of the strategy is its focus on Russia itself: its demographics, its political stability and sovereignty, national accord and harmony, economic development on the basis of new technologies, protection of the environment and adaptation to climate change, and—last but not least—the nation’s spiritual and moral climate. This inward focus is informed by history. Exactly thirty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed just as its military power was at its peak, and not as a result of a foreign invasion. Having recently regained the country’s great power status and successfully reformed and rearmed its military, the Russian leadership has every reason now to turn homeward to address the glaring weaknesses, imbalances, and inequalities of the country’s internal situation.

The paper outlines a lengthy series of measures for dealing with a host of domestic issues, from rising poverty and continued critical dependence on imported technology to the advent of green energy and the loss of the Soviet-era technological and educational edge. This certainly makes sense. Indeed, the recent Kremlin discovery of climate change as a top-tier issue is a hopeful sign that Russia is overcoming its former denial of the problem, along with inordinately exuberant expectations of the promise of global warming for a predominantly cold country. After all, the Kremlin’s earlier embrace of digitalization has given a major push to the spread of digital services across Russia.

The strategy does not ignore the moral and ethical aspects of national security. It provides a list of traditional Russian values and discusses them at length. It sees these values as being under attack through Westernization, which threatens to rob the Russians of their cultural sovereignty, and through attempts to vilify Russia by rewriting history. In sum, the paper marks an important milestone in Russia’s official abandonment of the liberal phraseology of the 1990s and its replacement with a moral code rooted in the country’s own traditions. Yet here, the strategy misses a key point at the root of Russia’s many economic and social problems: the widespread absence of any values, other than purely materialistic ones, among much of the country’s ruling elite. The paper mentions in passing the need to root out corruption, but the real issue is bigger by an order of magnitude. As each of President Putin’s annual phone-in sessions with the Russian people demonstrates—including the most recent one on June 30—Russia is governed by a class of people who are, for the most part, self-serving, and do not care at all for ordinary people or the country, instead focusing single-mindedly on making themselves rich on the job. Money—or rather Big Money—has become that group’s top value, and the most corrosive element in today’s Russia. Therein lies perhaps the biggest vulnerability of modern Russia.

On foreign policy, the strategy is fairly elliptic, but it gives a hint of what the upcoming Foreign Policy Concept might include. The United States and some of its NATO allies are now officially branded unfriendly states. Relations with the West are de-prioritized and those countries ranked last in terms of closeness, behind former Soviet countries; the strategic partners China and India; non-Western institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and the Russia-India-China trio; and other Asian, Latin American, and African countries. In addition to U.S. military deployments and its system of alliances, U.S.-based internet giants with their virtual monopoly in the information sphere, and the U.S. dollar that dominates global finances are also seen as instruments of containing Russia.

Overall, the 2021 Russian National Security Strategy seeks to adapt the country to a still interconnected world of fragmentation and sharpening divisions, in which the main battle lines are drawn not only—and not even mostly—between countries, but within them. Victories will be won and defeats suffered largely on domestic turf. Accordingly, it is the Home Front that presents the greatest challenges, and it is there that the main thrust of government policies must be directed.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Defense

Can Somaliland Be Alternative for Russia’s Troubled Sudanese Naval Base Plans?

Published

on

russian-navy
Picture Source: whitefleet.net

Sudan confirmed on Tuesday that it will review last year’s naval base agreement with Russia following speculation in April that the deal might be shelved. According to Chief of General Staff Muhammad Othman al-Hussein, who made the announcement while speaking to the Blue Nile TV channel, this is supposedly because “some of the document’s provisions entail certain harm for Sudan.” He also reminded everyone that the deal had not yet been approved by the country’s legislature, so it was never legally binding to begin with. Moreover, the military official denied that Sudan’s decision has anything to do with American pressure.

It is unclear whether the latter claim is credible, since the U.S. has greatly expanded its influence in Sudan upon its recent removal of the country from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. That move took place in the aftermath of the coup against the former President Omar al-Bashir, who had previously been regarded as close to Russia but ended up entering into a rapprochement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in the years before his military-backed ouster. That policy reorientation resulted in him dispatching troops to assist the GCC’s war in Yemen and is thought to have served as a means for gradually repairing relations with the U.S., too.

In any case, the uncertainty surrounding Russia’s planned Sudanese naval base could harm Moscow’s regional interests. I explained the grand strategic contours of this move with respect to Russia’s broader engagement with the international Muslim community (Ummah) as well as discussed its economic significance considering the planned base’s location in Port Sudan, the terminal point of a prospectively promising Chinese Silk Road project stretching across the Sahel.

If these plans are scuttled, whether due to American pressure or Sudan’s own prerogative, then Russia should consider a regional replacement as soon as possible. One such scenario could be to explore the pros and cons of constructing a similar facility in the breakaway Somali region of Somaliland. Unconfirmed reports circulated in early 2018 speculating that Russia planned to establish such a base in the Djibouti-bordering town of Zeila. Although it never transpired, I nonetheless analyzed what it would have meant in a piece published at the time.

In the contemporary context, such a decision would admittedly be somewhat risky for Russia’s soft power, since Moscow would essentially be extending de facto support for the separatist region’s claims of sovereignty. This observation could clash with Russia’s principled support of international law, which recognizes Somaliland as an integral part of the Federal Republic of Somalia as well as sow the seeds of distrust between Moscow and Mogadishu. At the same time, though, it should not be forgotten that the UAE used to have a military base in Somaliland’s Berbera that was recently converted to a civilian facility.

The UAE previously relied on this base to assist its war in Yemen, but as Oxford scholar Dr. Samuel Ramani noted in his article for Al Monitor, “the UAE is reorienting its Red Sea strategy away from direct military intervention and toward a synthesis of economic investment and remote power projection.” In other words, the Emirates’ regional military engagement successfully enabled the country’s policy to evolve in the economic direction after opening up the requisite doors for this to happen with Somaliland’s leadership.

Russia could in principle follow in the UAE’s footsteps, though importantly without using its proposed base there for any active military purposes like Abu Dhabi did with Yemen. Even better yet, Russia should seriously consider clinching a comprehensive regional partnership with the UAE to enhance its position over the entire Horn of Africa. I argued such a proposal would be the next natural step in their emerging partnership of the past few years which has seen them coordinate more closely in Syria as well as expand military cooperation.

These developments confirm the increasingly independent nature of the UAE’s foreign policy seeing as how they contrast with its American ally’s efforts to contain Russia at every turn. This speaks to the sincere confluence of interests between those two countries that is driving their new era of relations. It is also worth mentioning that the UAE is a major player in Ethiopia, which is Africa’s second most populous state whose capital hosts the African Union. The Emirates’ plans to construct a connectivity corridor between Ethiopia and Somaliland terminating in Berbera could also in theory be utilized by Russia to expand trade with Ethiopia.

After all, Ethiopia experienced some of the world’s fastest economic growth prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic so it is worthwhile for Russia to consider expanding relations with this landlocked state via transit entities, such as Somaliland, and its UAE-constructed connectivity corridor. Even if Sudan agrees to respect its non-binding deal to host a Russian Red Sea base, that country might no longer serve as Moscow’s gateway to Ethiopia as previously expected after the re-eruption of last year’s border conflict in the midst of Addis Ababa’s ongoing military intervention in Tigray Province, hence the importance of actively searching for alternatives.

Djibouti might have been the one that first comes to the minds of Russian decision-makers, but it already hosts quite a few foreign military facilities so the situation there is very crowded, to begin with. Moscow might not feel comfortable being “one among many”, instead preferring to have privileged military access to one or another regional player so as to serve as a springboard for comprehensively expanding its relations with its host, ergo the strategic interest in doing so with Somaliland. Eritrea also remains an option, but it lacks reliable economic connectivity with Ethiopia, especially considering the ongoing military conflict in the neighboring Tigray Province.

It is for these reasons why Somaliland is arguably the best alternative to Russia’s troubled Sudanese naval base plans if the latter are ultimately scuttled. That said, the drawbacks of this policy could be that Somalia becomes offended by what it could claim is Russia’s “meddling” in its internal affairs through Moscow’s de facto acknowledgment of Hargeisa’s sovereignty claims. Nevertheless, the UAE already crossed that threshold several years ago without any tangible consequences, even though the rivalling Turkey has a military base in Somalia proper. It is therefore unlikely that the recently close Russian-Turkish ties would suffer from such a move either.

Just to play it safe, however, Russia might not opt for building a brand-new military base in Somaliland but for exploring the possibility of reaching a logistics pact with its port of Berbera instead. Although that would also imply some acceptance of Hargeisa’s sovereignty, it would avoid the appearance of any military commitments to the breakaway region and could be justified on the basis of pragmatism. If compelled to choose, it would arguably be better for Russia to take its chances with Somaliland in pursuit of improving connectivity with Ethiopia rather than avoid offending Somalia proper and lose out on this promising connectivity opportunity.

Altogether, Russia should begin considering possible alternatives to its troubled Sudanese naval base plans. Although the Somaliland proposal carries with it risks to Russia’s soft power and bilateral ties with Somalia proper, these possible costs might be worth it if they result in expanding ties with both the UAE and Ethiopia, which are much more attractive long-term partners for Moscow. There would be nothing special about opening a base in a crowded Djibouti if Russia were even allowed to do so, nor does Eritrea provide a viable connectivity potential with Ethiopia, hence the reason why Somaliland should be seriously looked at instead.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

coronavirus people coronavirus people
Reports30 mins ago

Post-COVID-19, regaining citizen’s trust should be a priority for governments

The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated governments’ ability to respond to a major global crisis with extraordinary flexibility, innovation and determination....

Energy News5 hours ago

IRENA Outlines Action Agenda on Offshore Renewables for G20

Boosting offshore renewables will accelerate the energy transition and allow G20 countries to build a resilient and sustainable energy system,...

EU Politics7 hours ago

Commission overhauls anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism rules

The European Commission has today presented an ambitious package of legislative proposals to strengthen the EU’s anti-money laundering and countering...

WAN WAN
Energy News9 hours ago

Empowering “Smart Cities” toward net zero emissions

The world’s cities can play a central role to accelerate progress towards clean, low-carbon, resilient and inclusive energy systems. This...

International Law11 hours ago

Crime of Ecocide: Greening the International Criminal Law

In June 2021, an Independent Expert Panel under the aegis of Stop Ecocide Foundation presented a newly-drafted definition for the...

Americas13 hours ago

Indictment of Trump associate threatens UAE lobbying success

This month’s indictment of a billionaire, one-time advisor and close associate of former US President Donald J. Trump, on charges...

Green Planet14 hours ago

Climate change could spark floods in world’s largest desert lake

For years it appeared as though Lake Turkana, which sits in an arid part of northern Kenya, was drying up....

Trending